UC-NRLF 


Mitchell 


LIBRARY 

I     UNIVERSITY  OF     I 
VcALIFORHIA/ 


THE  QUESTION 


BEFORE  CONGRESS 


A  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE 

AND  FINAL  ACTION  BY  CONGRESS 

UPON   VARIOUS    PHASES  OF 

THE  RACE  QUESTION  IN 

THE  UNITED  STATES 


By  GEO*  W*  MITCHELL 


THE  A.   M.   E.   BOOK  CONCERN 
PHILADELPHIA,   PA. 


LOAN  STACK 


Copyright,    1918 

By    GEORGE    W.    MITCHELL 
Philadelphia,    Pa. 


Contents 


CHAPTER  L— Attitude  of  Leading  Statesmen  on  Slavery  Ques 
tion — Slavery  in  Constitution  to  Satisfy  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia — Slave  Trade  Stimulated  17 

CHAPTER  II.— Organization  of  the  Territory  of  Arkansas  and 
the  Attempt  to  Exclude  Slavery — The  Missouri  Struggle — 
Secession  Threatened — Gen.  Talmage's  Defiance  24 

CHAPTER  III.— President  Monroe  and  His  Cabinet  on  Missouri 
Compromise — Slaves  as  Personal  Property — Indians  Succor 
Escaping  Slaves — The  Exiles  of  Florida — Battle  of  Blout's 
Fort — First  Seminole  War — Ejectment  of  Indians  from 
Georgia — Second  Seminole  'War — Attack  Upon  Major  Dade..  32 

CHAPTER  IV.  (1835-45)— The  Twenty-fourth  Congress— Anti- 
Slavery  Literature  Excluded  from  Mails — Right  of  Petition 
Attacked;  Defended  by  John  Quincy  Adams — Constitution  of 
Arkansas  Prohibiting  Emancipation — Anti-Slavery  Men  Leave 
South — Agitation  in  North  Intensified — Effect  of  Murder  of 
Lovejoy — The  Jackson  Administration — Accession  of  Van 
Buren — The  Twenty-fifth  Congress — Secession  of  Represen 
tatives  from  Virginia,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia — Calhoun 
Binds  Congress  to  Support  of  Slavery — Giddings  Enters 
Congress — The  Twenty-sixth  Congress  Has  Four  Anti- 
Slavery  Men — Election  of  Harrison  as  President — Abroga 
tion  of  the  "Gag  Rule"  3£ 

CHAPTER  V.  (1845-48)— The  Twenty-ninth  Congress— Consti 
tution  of  Florida — Mexican  War — Wilmot  Proviso — The  Thir 
tieth  Congress — Hale,  First  Anti-Slavery  Senator — Palfrey 
Enters  House — Death  of  John  Quincy  Adams  54 

CHAPTER  VI.  (1848)— Formation  of  Free  Soil  Party— Beginning 
of  End  of  Whig  Party— Presidential  Candidates  of  '48— Sec- 
tionalization  of  Political  Parties — Election  of  Taylor  61 

CHAPTER  VII.  (1848-50)— The  Thirtieth  Congress,  Second  Ses 
sion — The  Gott  Resolution  for  Abolition  of  Slavery  in  District 
of  Columbia — Slavery  Excluded  from  California  and  New 
Mexico — South  Carolina  Hints  at  Secession  and  Civil  War — 
The  Thirty-first  Gpngress — Fugitive  Slave  Act — Protest  of 
South  i $5 

[3] 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VIII  (1850-56)—  Kansas-Nebraska  Troubles— Repeal 
of  Missouri  Compromise — Sumner  in  Senate — Douglas'  Pop 
ular  Sovereignty — Sumner  Assaulted  by  Brooks  72 

CHAPTER  IX.  (1856-61)— Organization  of  Republican  Party- 
Nomination  of  Fremont  and  Dayton — Exciting  Campaign — 
Election  of  Buchanan — Candidates,  Platforms  and  Conven 
tions  of  1860 — Dred  Scott  Decision — John  Brown's  Raid — 
Preparation  for  Rebellion  in  Anticipation  of  Lincoln's  Elec 
tion — Northern  Newspapers  Encourage  South  to  Rebel — 
Speakership  Contest — Republicans  Hedge — Jeff  Davis  Sets 
Forth  Position  of  South — Revival  of  Foreign  Slave  Trade  ..  79 

CHAPTER  X  (1861)— First  Republican  House  of  Representatives 
— Members  Confused  and  Excited — Inauguration  of  Lincoln 
— Opposes  Interference  With  Slavery — Sketch  of  Lincoln's 
Public  Career — Not  an  Abolitionist — Secession  and  Beginning 
of  Civil  War  92 

CHAPTER  XL— Early  Conduct  of  War— Union  Army  Catching 
Slaves — Gen.  Butler's  Early  Start  at  Slave  Catching  and 
Repentance — Administration  Opposed  to  Freeing  Slaves — 
Gen.  Fremont  Relieved  of  Command — Gen.  Hunter  in  South 
Carolina — Administration  Begins  to  Recede — Opposition  to 
Negro  Soldiers — Draft  Riots — Heroic  Treatment  of  Rebel 
lion  Begins — Confiscation  Act — Lincoln  Offers  Pay  for  Slaves 
— Efforts  to  Evade  Emancipation  in  District  of  Columbia — 
Clamor  for  General  Emancipation — Greeley's  Letter  and 
Lincoln's  Reply — Preliminary  Proclamation  99 

CHAPTER  XII— Lincoln  Again  Offers  to  Pay  for  Slaves— Res 
olution  in  Congress  Demanding  Unconditional  Emancipation 
— President  Doubts  Authority  and  Hesitates  to  Issue  Procla 
mation 112 

CHAPTER  XIII.— Edict  ,,of  Emancipation— Thirteenth  Amend 
ment — Civil  Rights  in  District  of  Columbia — Penniless  Freed- 
men — Freedmen's  Bureau — Death  of  Lincoln  115 

CHAPTER  XIV.— Colored  Soldiers'  Status;  Discrimination 
Against — Massachusetts  Colored  Troops  Refuse  Pay — Officer 
Littlefield's  Report — Draft  Act — Commission  to  Pay  Loyal 
Masters  120 

CHAPTER  XV.— Just  After  the  War— Reconstruction— Republi 
cans  Divided  into  Conservatives  and  Radicals — Probable 
Attitude  of  Lincoln — The  Sumner  Plan — Hints  at  Extension 
of  Suffrage— Black  Codes— President  Johnson  at  Odds  With 
Congress — Growth  of  Radicalism — Suffrage  in  District  of 
Columbia — Power  of  Freedmen's  Bureau  Extended — Negroes 
in  Possession  of  Land  Under  Order  of  General  Sherman 125 

[4] 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XVI.— Necessity  for  Clothing  Freemen  with  Citizen 
ship — Fourteenth  Amendment — First  Civil  Rights  Measure — 
Sumner's  Radicalism — Stewart's  Proposition — President  John 
son's  Plan — Commission  to  Pay  So-Called  Loyal  Masters  ...  135 

CHAPTER  XVII.— Ku  Klux  Outrages— Re-enslavement  of  Freed- 
men  Under  Black  Codes — Discrimination  of  Courts — Col 
orado  Constitution — Admission  of  Tennessee — Admission  of 
Nebraska  147 

CHAPTER  XVIIL— Destitution  Among  Negroes  Who  Followed 
Army  to  Washington — Bill  for  Relief — Founding  of  Hillsdale, 
D.  C. — Property  and  Funds  in  Hands  of  Freedmen's  Bureau 
— Stevens'  Proposition  to  Give  Freedmen  Land,  Forty  Acres 
to  Each  Family — President  Johnson  Arraigned  Congress — 
Status  of  Seceded  States  in  Elections  of  186&— Platforms  and 
Candidates — Election  of  Grant — Fifteenth  Amendment — 
Sumner's  Substitute  for  Fifteenth  Amendment— Sumner  At 
tacked  by  Colleagues  155 

CHAPTER  XIX.— Negroes  in  Politics— Election  Riots— Admis 
sion  of  Alabama  and  Arkansas — Omnibus  Bill — Outrages  of 
Ku  Klux  Investigated — Fifteenth  Amendment  to  be  Adopted 
Before  States  Admitted— Virginia  Bill— Admission  of  Mis 
sissippi — Revels,  First  Negro  Senator  170 

CHAPTER  XX.— Colored  Men  Elected  to  Georgia  Legislature 
Expelled— Ratification  of  Fifteenth  Amendment— Admission 
of  Georgia  180 

CHAPTER  XXI. — The  Grant-Sumner  Quarrel  Over  Annexation 
of  San  Domingo — Senator  Thurman  Defends  Sumner — Sum 
ner  Victorious  but  Colleagues  Seek  to  Humiliate  Him  185 

CHAPTER  XXII.— Outrages  in  South  and  Legislation  for  Sup 
pression — Sumner's  Civil  Rights  Bill — Ku  Klux  Investigation 
Reported — Force  Bill — Suppression  of  Ku  Klux  189 

CHAPTER    XXIIL— General     Amnesty— Sumner's     Civil     Rights 

Bill  Defeated— Death  of  Sumner— Civil  Rights  Bill  Passed  ..  196 

CHAPTER  XXIV.— Election  of  Hayes— Removal  of  Troops  from 

South — End   of   the   Carpet-Bagger    202 

CHAPTER  XXV.— Education  for  Colored  People— Ante-Bellum 
Teachers  and  Promoters — Beginning  of  Higher  Education — 
Work  of  Freedmen's  Bureau  Under  Howard — Free  Public 
Schools — State  Policy — Disfranchisement  of  Negroes — Cur 
tailment  of  School  Privileges — Discrimination  Countenanced 
by  Courts— The  End  207 


[5] 


CONTENTS 
Contents  of  Appendixes 

A — Lincoln's  Amnesty  Proclamation  of  1863 — Lincoln's  Procla 
mation  of  July  8,  1864,  Rejecting  Congressional  Plan  of 
Reconstruction — Protest  of  Senator  Wade  and  Others 

Against  Action  of  President  Lincoln   219 

l 

B — Interesting  Decisions  of  U.  S.  Supreme  Court,  with  Author's 
Comment  in  Notes,  Prigg  vs.  Penna. ;  Dred  Scott;  On  Four 
teenth  Amendment;  Civil  Rights,  etc.;  On  Fifteenth  Amend 
ment 229 

C — State  Court  Decisions,  in  Relation  to  Miscegenation,  Railway 
Traveling,  Public  Schools,  etc 236 


Foreword 


It  is  difficult  for  one' to  write  an  unbiased  history  of  the 
events  in  which  he  himself  took  part.  And  the  cold,  unvarn 
ished  truth,  whether  told  by  the  historian  or  otherwise,  is 
seldom  popular.  Most  popular  histories,  therefore,  are  writ 
ten,  not  to  record  the  truth  as  if  is  found,  but  rather  to  boost 
or  to  disparage  the  memory  of  some  party  or  cause.  Being 
desirous  of  learning  the  truth  concerning  the  events  of  which 
this  volume  treats,  and  rinding  that  the  historians  differed 
widely  among  themselves  in  many  particular  cases,  the 
author  was  led  to  examine  the  original  records  of  Congress 
page  by  page.  A  few  of  the  notes  taken  in  connection  with 
this  reading  have  been  put  in  the  shape  of  the  following  pages, 
and  offered  as  a  contribution  to  the  literature  on  this  particu 
lar  subject  to  any  who  may  be  interested  in  knowing  the- 
whole  truth  as  we  found  it.  "Nothing  to  extenuate,  and  set 
down  naught  in  malice." 

G.  W.  M. 


[7] 


Introduction 


The  world  has  always  had  a  so-called  race  question,  which 
:is  but  another  name  for  the  struggle  on  the  part  of  one  mass, 
class  or  individual  for  mastery  over  another,  or  the  attempt 
to  adjust  relations  to  their  mutual  advantage  while  striving 
to  achieve  group  ideals.  ,The  history  of  the  world  is  but  the 
story  of  this  struggle  which  is  hoary  with  age,  yet  always 
new,  because  the  old  oppressor  of  to-day  becomes  the  latest 
victim  of  to-morrow.  Perhaps  it  is  putting  it  a  little  strongly 
to  speak  of  oppressor  and  oppressed;  it  might  be  fairer  to 
say  that  the  never-ending  battle  is  between  those  in  power 
and  those  seeking  to  dislodge  them;  and,  after  all,  the  man 
on  top  occupies  the  more  precarious  position  for  the  reason 
that  his  sleepless  antagonist  beneath  will  surely  get  the  upper 
hand  some  day,  as  there  is  no  way  for  him  to  move  but  up 
ward;  and  move  he  must  or  be  ground  to  pieces  and  disap 
pear,  which  is  itself  movement.  All  the  great  nations  have 
what  we  call  a  race  problem  due  to  the  presence  of  so-called 
foreign  elements  in  their  midst.  England  has  its  Irishmen ; 
France,  its  Jews ;  Germany,  its  many  branches  of  broken 
races ;  Russia,  its  Poles  and  Jews.  The  statute  books  are 
filled  with  laws  expressive  of  the  aims  of  one  element  to 
maintain  first  place  and  of  another  to  resist  encroachments 
upon  what  it  regards  as  its  rights.  Each  side  has  its  cham 
pions  in  legislative  halls  or  upon  the  hustings  and  the  record 
of  their  combats  constitutes  the  history  of  the  times.  For, 
however  crude  the  age  or  however  barbarous  and  strong  the 
master  class,  the  oppressed  have  never  been  without  a  cham 
pion.  Slavery  is  universally  regarded  as  the  lowest  position 
a  man  can  occupy  in  human  society.  Three  hundred  years 
ago,  this  institution  in  the  eyes  of  many  in  possession  of 
power,  did  not  seem  monstrous  nor  even  altogether  unkind. 

[9] 


INTRODUCTION 

The  desire  to  live  is  common  and  overwhelming.  Ease  and 
comfort  seem  to  hold  out  the  alluring  promise  of  long  life, 
and  philosophical  or  religious  sentiment  has  never  been  suf 
ficiently  universal  or  strong  enough  to  prevent  men  from 
seeking  the  good  things  of  life  at  any  cost.  Those  who  con 
federate  in  this  search  can  see  no  wrong  in  what  they  may 
do  to  others  provided  the  desired  end  is  accomplished.  The 
pious  New  Englanders  were  wont  to  thank  God  that  they 
were  able  to  save  some  "Negro  and  Indian  heathens  from  the 
devyl  by  making  slaves  of  them."  That  these  were  more  or 
less  genuine  efforts  at  benevolent  assimilation  in  the  first  in 
stance,  in  view  of  the  privileges  and  immunities  extended  to 
those  who  were  baptized,,  may  be  admitted.  Nevertheless,  as 
we  now  look  back,  we  regard  these  notions  as  crude  and  en 
tirely  out  of  harmony  with  our  modern  views  of  Christianity. 
But  they  were  a  Bible-reading  people — these  New  England 
ers — and  doubtless  believed  that  they  had  cornered  the  very 
heathen  which  the  Bible  speaks  of  as  being  "given  as  their 
possession."  With  such  texts  upon  their  lips  in  connection 
with  the  scarcity  of  labor,  their  relish  for  benevolent  assimi 
lation  was  kept  sharp.  The  Indians  absolutely  refused  to 
enter  into  the  scheme  and  took  to  the  woods ;  and  the  bap 
tized  Negro  was  far  from  being  happy.  This,  however,  made 
but  little  difference,  as  it  was  regarded  as  mere  heathen  in 
gratitude.  Then  again,  these  masters  themselves  had  been 
accustomed  to  tyranny.  Many  of  them  were  only  now  fleeing 
from  a  condition  in  Europe  bordering  on  slavery.  They  had 
been  used  to  seeing  the  poor  and  weak  abused  by  the  power 
ful.  With  scant  supplies,  they  had  just  pitched  their  tent  in 
this  trackless  forest.  Force  and  strength  of  arms  were  the 
only  capital  that  had  any  real  value.  Under  such  conditions 
the  social  pet  is  the  giant  who  is  able  to  defend  his  hut 
against  all  comers.  The  ethics  of  the  school-man  become 
ridiculous. 

The  Puritan  panting  for  religious  liberty,  the  pioneer 
thirsting  for  political  freedom,  the  adventurer  in  search  of 
gold,  were  all  affected  by  the  hard  conditions  by  which  they 
found  themselves  surrounded — conditions  that  made  help  in 

[10] 


INTRODUCTION 

the  shape  of  stout  laborers  a  necessity.  When  the  Huguenot 
arrived,  boiling  over  with  religious  fervor,  and  the  passen 
gers  from  the  Mayflower  dropped  on  their  knees  to  return 
thanks  to  God  for  having  enabled  them  to  reach  the  land 
where  they  might  give  full  expression  to  their  ideal  life  of 
piety  and  devotion,  they  little  thought  that  in  Old  New  Eng 
land  Negro  babies  would  be  so  eagerly  sought  for  as  slaves 
that  they  would  be  sold  by  the  pound.  The  political  adven 
turer,  too,  saw  many  of  his  dreams  of  greatness  fade  as  he 
found  himself  practically  confined  to  territory  within  the 
range  of  his  rifle  notwithstanding  the  number  of  acres  de 
scribed  as  his  in  the  king's  Letters  Patent.  The  vast  expanse 
of  unopen  country  and  forests  filled  with  hostile  Indians  and 
the  utter  lack  of  facilities  for  inter-colonial  communication, 
tended  to  define  and  limit  the  bounds  of  the  several  settle 
ments  almost  as  completely  as  though  they  were  Continents 
separated  by  wastes  of  water.  Neither  common  blood  nor 
identity  of  interests  could  accomplish  the  destruction  of  these 
barriers  before  localism  had  secured  a  long  start  on  confedera 
tion,  to  say  nothing  of  nationalization.  Each  settlement  had 
its  own  regulations,  and  troubles,  too,  without  the  least  ref 
erence  to  the  other.  So  it  happened  that  the  Puritans  of  New 
England,  the  Cavaliers  of  Virginia  and  the  Dutch  of  New 
York,  had  but  slight  connections  with  each  other.  All  began 
to  develop  under  a  sort  of  look-out-for-yourself  policy;  all 
anxiously  purchased  tramps,  expelled  from  England,  and 
exiled  felons  for  terms  varying  from  four  to  seven  years, 
under  such  arrangements  as  could  be  made  with  the  skippers. 
They  even  bought  victims  kidnapped  from  European  ports, 
for  kidnappers  had  been  getting  white  men  long  before  Ne 
groes  had  been  thought  of  in  this  connection.1 

It  is  one  of  the  most  curious  paradoxes  of  history  that  hu 
man  slavery  of  the  meanest  and  most  loathsome  type  should 
have  developed  at  a  time  when  there  was  nothing  discussed 
so  much  as  the  Bible,  nothing  professed  more  blatantly  than 
Christianity  and  theologians  had  a  monopoly  on  the  learning 


1.  Thwait's    Epochs    in    Amer.    Hist.,    page    74.      Salmon's    Domestic    Service, 
page  22. 


INTRODUCTION 

of  the  age.  Europe  had  just  begun  to  realize  that  her  people 
were  enslaved  by  a  Church  whose  priests  were  enslaved  by 
their  own  bigotry  while  the  whole  population  was  enmeshed 
in  the  embraces  of  a  terrifying  religious  superstition  that 
terrified  all  who  embraced  it.  There  was  a  seething  in  the 
religious  world.  Men  began  to  make  laws  to  restrain  the 
rapacity  of  the  Church  and  were  hesitating  about  striking  at 
the  State  which  they  found  involved.  These  troubles  were 
beginning  to  be  acute,  especially  in  England,  where  kings 
were  destined  to  be  dethroned  on  account  of  it  and  one  at 
least  was  to  lose  his  head.  This  strife  impoverished  many 
people  who  not  only  sought  peace  and  safety  in  flight  to 
America  but  here  also  hoped  to  recuperate  their  broken  for 
tunes.  The  English  rulers  were  glad  enough  to  get  rid  of 
many  of  these  agitators  who  were  clamoring  not  only  for  re 
ligious  liberty  but  for  the  equally  if  not  more  important 
rights  of  civil  liberty,  by  granting  them  land  in  America.  But 
after  all,  land  is  of  but  little  use  without  labor  and  these 
broken  English  gentlemen  had  never  worked  with  their  own 
hands  and  the  number  of  stragglers  whom  they,  with  the  as 
sistance  of  skippers,  could  kidnap  about  the  docks  of  Lon 
don,  was  quite  inadequate.  The  mother  country  naturally  en 
couraged  these  adventurers  in  every  manner  calculated  to 
make  them  come  here  and  to  remain,  and  if  these  conditions 
caused  the  stealing  of  straggling  Englishmen  to  be  condoned, 
surely  the  members  of  an  alien  race  could  expect  little  sym 
pathy  and  no  help  against  the  ravishers.  Everybody  could 
take  all  the  men  he  could  catch  and  hold  them  as  long  as  he 
could. 

The  common  dangers  of  the  American  colonists  naturally 
caused  them  to  make  their  cause  common.  The  planters  were 
compelled  to  combine  not  only  to  hold  their  slaves  and  in 
dentured  servants,  the  euphemism  applied  to  their  white 
slaves,  but  more  especially  to  protect  themselves  against  the 
ugly  tomahawks  of  the  Indians.  And  while  these  colonists 
soon  organized  and  settled  themselves  in  communities,  they 
brought  with  them  from  abroad  all  their  religious  prejudices 
and  racial  antipathies.  Here  was  a  settlement  of  Huguenots, 

[12] 


INTRODUCTION 

there  one  of  Dutch,  and  still  another  dominated  by  Quakers 
as  about  old  Philadelphia,  while  Cavaliers  held  forth  further 
south.  These  communities  developed  and  finally  divided  the 
territory  among  themselves  and  took  the  name  of  states. 
They  built  schools  and  churches  to  suit  themselves  likewise 
exploited  their  slaves  and  burnt  their  witches.  Although 
commonly  practiced  over  all  the  country,  slavery  in  its  in 
fancy  was  recognized  as  a  strictly  local  institution,  and  its 
regulation,  propagation  or  abolition  was  altogether  under  the 
control  of  the  local  community.  Thus  it  happened  that  many 
states  just  after  the  Revolution  abolished  slavery  within  their 
borders.2 

The  reaction  from  the  struggle  for  independence  and  the 
manly  part  the  Negroes  had  taken  in  the  war  as  soldiers  and 
fellow-workers  with  the  other  patriots,  naturally  attracted 
attention  to  their  social  and  political  status.  All  the  leading 
men  of  the  nation  were,  at  that  time  or  soon  before,  anti- 
slavery  men  and  slave  holding  was  never  so  unpopular  in  this 
country.  Jefferson's  opposition  to  slavery  was  well-known.3 
He  both  wrote  and  spoke  against  it  and  no  man  of  his  time 
did  so  much  as  he  did  to  check  its  progress.  Madison  and 
Henry  also  opposed  the  institution.4  But  this  opposition  did 
not  go  so  far  as  to  demand  immediate  and  unconditional 
emancipation,  for  the  system  had  already  taken  too  strong  a 
hold  under  the  fostering  influence  of  England  to  pernfit  men 
like  the  above  to  anticipate  Garrison. 

The  expatriation  of  the  freed  colored  people  was  one  of  the 
cardinal  principles  of  the  early  emancipationists ;  indeed  the 
American  Colonization  Society  was  but  the  crystalization  of 
this  idea  into  a  working  organization.  The  great  moral  force 


2.  Massachusetts    adopted    a    Constitution    which    the    Supreme    Court    of    the 
State  declared  incompatible  with  slavery,  in  1780,  March  2;  Connecticut  passed 
her  Emancipation  Act  March  1,  1784;  Rhode  Island  about  the   same  year;   New 
Hampshire    in    1792;   Vermont,    1793;    New    York,    1799;    New   Jersey,    1804.      "The 
condition  of  Negroes   in   this  Union   is  regulated  by   the  municipal   laws  of  the 
separate    states;   the   Government   of   the   United   States    can    neither    guarantee 
their   liberty    in    a    state   where    they    would    be    recognized   only    as    slaves    nor 
control  them  where  they  would  be  recognized  as   free."— Extract  from  Instruc 
tions  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Gallatin  and  Rush,   Pleni 
potentiaries    to    England,    November  2,    1818.     Annals    Fifteenth    Congress.     Ap 
pendix,   page   1577. 

3.  Giddings'    Hist.    Rebellion,    p.    11. 

4.  Jefferson's   Works,  Vol.   1,  pp.  23,  24,   135.     Elliott's   Debates,  iii,  p.  455,  etc. 
Livermore's    Essays — Attitude   of   the    Founders,   etc.,   ch.    1. 

[13] 


INTRODUCTION 

that  constantly  sustained  the  anti-slavery  agitation,  however, 
emanated  from  the  religious  sect  known  as  Quakers  or 
Friends.  Year  after  year  they  discussed  the  institution  and 
bitterly  arraigned  its  supporters.  The  first  anti-slavery  so 
ciety  in  the  United  States  was  founded  in  Philadelphia  in 
1775,  with  Dr.  Benjamin  Franklin  as  President.5  Dr.  Frank 
lin  was  succeeded  by  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush.  Other  societies 
were  formed  as  follows :  New  York,  1785,  with  John  Jay  as 
President;  Delaware,  1788;  Maryland,  1789;  Rhode  Island 
and  Connecticut,  1790;  Virginia,  1791 ;  New  Jersey,  1792.  All 
of  these  societies  were  represented  in  a  general  convention 
held  at  Philadelphia  in  1784,  from  which  date  general  con 
ventions  of  the  kind  were  kept  up,  somewhat  indifferently  at 
times  to  be  sure,  until  about  the  time  of  the  founding  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society  in  1833.6  In  May,  1776,  the 
whole  Quaker  sect  or  Church  adopted  a  resolution  withdraw 
ing  fellowship  from  any  of  their  number  who  refused  to  dis 
countenance  slavery  after  that  date.  As  a  consequence  of  this 
move,  a  large  number  of  slaves  in  Virginia,  North  Carolina 
and  other  southern  states  was  emancipated.  Many  of  these, 
however,  were  re-enslaved  by  the  southern  planters  before 
they  could  effect  their  escape  from  these  parts.  It  is  recorded 
that  in  three  counties  of  North  Carolina  alone,  one  hundred 
and  thirty-seven  of  such  persons  were  sold  into  slavery  again 
by  the  sheriff  in  a  single  day.7 

When  this  state  of  affairs  was  brought  to  the  attention  of 
Congress,  a  bill  was  promptly  reported  "For  the  Protection 
of  Free  Negroes,"  etc.,  but  it  was  never  acted  upon.8  Indeed 
it  was  seriously  claimed  in  North  Carolina  that  no  person  had 
the  right  to  emancipate  his  slaves  and  this  contention  was 
maintained  until  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  decided  that 
such  a  right  did  exist9  whereupon  the  legislature  of  the  state 
passed  a  law  authorizing  any  one  to  sell  free  Negroes  into 


5.  Nearly    one    hundred    years    before    this    time    the    Quakers    of    Philadelphia 
had  begun   to  agitate  the   slavery  question.    Vide   Pennypacker's   "Early   Dutch 
Settlers." 

6.  Life  of  Garrison,  by  His  Children,  Vol.  1,  p.  90. 

7.  Giddings'   Hist.,   etc.,   p.   23. 

8.  Cf.   Giddings,   p.   22. 

9.  Vide   Stroud's   Slave  Laws. 

[14] 


INTRODUCTION 

slavery.  And  it  was  on  the  petition  of  the  slave  holders  of 
North  Carolina  that  Congress,  in  1802,  passed  an  exclusion 
act  against  the  Negroes  of  Hayti.  At  this  early  period  there 
was  little  anti-slavery  literature  of  a  permanent  nature  pub 
lished  in  this  country,  unless  the  memorials  and  petitions  of 
the  Quakers  and  the  anti-slavery  societies  be  called  perma 
nent.10  These  petitions  and  memorials  which  were  constantly 
poured  into  Congress  soon  began  to  be  reflected  in  essays  at 
legislation  either  to  tighten  or  loosen  the  chains  of  the  slave. 
In  every  slave-holding  community,  and  this  included  about 
the  whole  country,  there  were  statutes  and  ordinances  dis 
criminating  against  Indians  and  Negroes.  Except  for  the  pur 
pose  of  illustration,  however,  it  is  not  our  intention  to  notice 
particularly  these  local  regulations,  which  in  themselves 
would  fill  many  volumes,  but  to  direct  attention  to  the  na 
tional  aspects  of  the  race  problem,  so  called,  as  it  came  up  for 
consideration  as  THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS. 


10.  Ralph  Sanderson,  a  Quaker,  published  a  pamphlet  in  1729;  Benjamin  Lay, 
another  Quaker,  published  one  in  1737.  Many  works  against  slavery  had  been 
published  abroad  by  eminent  Negro  scholars,  but  they  dealt  with  the  question 
in  the  West  Indies  and  the  books  had  little  or  no  circulation  in  the  United 
States.  Eminent  statesmen  abroad  had  also  published  many  works,  cf.  H. 
Gregoire. 


[15] 


The  Question  Before  Congress 


CHAPTER  I 


The  Attitude  of  Leading  Statesmen  on  the  Question  of  Slavery — 
Slavery  in  the  Constitution  to  Satisfy  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia — Slave  Trade  Stimulated — Protest  of  Quakers  to  First 
Congress — Proposition'  to  Declare  Freedom  of  Slaves  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  After  July  4,  1805 — Suspension  of  Com 
mercial  Relations  with  Hayti — Slave  Trade  Attacked  by  John 
Randolph  of  Virginia. 

Slaves  can  be  acquired  only  by  the  power  of  arms  and  can 
be  held  only  by  a  continued  exertion  of  the  overwhelming 
force  by  which  they  were  acquired.  This  means  a  state  of  per 
petual  warfare  though  the  forces  in  resistance  may  be  so 
feeble  as  to  be  practically  negligible.  But  feeble  as  these 
opposing  forces  may  be  they  are  always  sufficient  to  make 
timid  ones  fearful,  brave  ones  apprehensive  and  to  deprive  all 
of  the  sense  of  absolute  security.  For  although  after  genera 
tions  of  breeding  and  training  in  subjugation,  most  of  the 
pristine  manhood  and  stamina  of  a  people  may  be  cuffed  and 
cudgeled  out,  there  is  always  the  danger  of  atavism  and  the 
likelihood  of  meeting  with  a  Nat  Turner  or  Denmark  Vesey 
at  some  lonely  spot  on  our  pathway,  and  worst  of  all,  suppose 
we  should  meet  a  Toussaint  L'Ouverture !  For  it  happened 
that  just  about  the  time  the  fathers  of  our  Republic  were 
laying  the  foundation  of  the  government,  this  country,  and 
the  world  at  large,  was  filled  with  the  echoing  sound  of  the 
feet  of  Frenchmen  fleeing  from  Hayti.  Small  wonder,  then, 
that  the  statesmanship  and  philanthropy  of  this  country  at 
the  time  was  against  human  slavery  and  that  a  strong  effort 
was  made  by  men  like  Jefferson  to  put  an  end  to  the  slave 
trade  and  to  arrange  for  the  ultimate  extirpation  of  the  in 
stitution  from  among  us1  and  that  a  majority  of  the  states 


1.  Elliott's   Debates,  Vol.  4,  p.  285. 

[17] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

as  shown  by  their  representatives  sent  to  the  convention  was 
in  favor  of  such  propositions,  and  that  the  project  failed  only 
because  a  two-thirds  vote  was  required  to  pass  it.2  The  rep 
resentatives  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  made  the  recog 
nition  of  slavery  a  sine  qua  non  of  their  states  entering  the 
Union.3  Besides  the  political  expediency  of  shelving  an  un 
pleasant  question,  there  were  many  things  before  this  con 
vention  that  were  deemed  of  greater  importance  than  this 
matter  of  getting  rid  of  the  incubus  of  slavery.  Then,  too, 
it  was  thought  that  after  we  had  settled  down  to  the  quiet 
enjoyment  of  our  liberties  under  our  Constitution,  the  nation 
would  take  up  and  settle  the  slavery  question  within  a  gen 
eration  at  furthest.  And  although  this  proved  to  be  a  delu 
sion,  it  was  readily  indulged  and  the  question  was  allowed  to 
be  compromised.  As  an  expedient  resorted  to  in  the  forma 
tion  of  the  Union,  it  worked  fairly  well  and  accomplished  its 
purpose ;  but  compromises  never  settle  anything  permanent 
ly  ;  it  was  forced  on  the  nation  by  South  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
which  states  made  it  their  price  of  entering  the  Union.4  Hav 
ing  won  this  first  contest  under  the  Constitution,  and  being 
stimulated  by  the  continued  demand  for  slaves,  the  African 
slave  trader  soon  became  bolder  in  his  activities,  more  shame 
less  in  his  methods  and  more  callous  of  conscience.  The 
method  of  kidnapping  men  by  enticing  them  aboard  ship  under 
pretense  of  the  desire  to  trade  was  soon  given  up  as  too  slow, 
too  sentimental ;  too  much  dependent  upon  chance.  To  make 
sure  of  large,  quick  loads,  the  trader  could  not  remain  aboard 
ship  and  wait  for  his  prey  while  in  African  ports.  Native  vil 
lages  were  sought  out  and  such  inhabitants  as  might  be  fit 
for  slaves  were  seized,  while  the  rest  were  butchered  or 
burned  with  their  huts.  These  depredations  soon  became  in 
tolerable  to  all  who  were  not  participating  in  the  immediate 
pecuniary  benefits.  An  anti-slavery  convention  was  called  to 
meet  at  Philadelphia  in  1794,  when  and  where  these  outrages 
were  taken  up  and  discussed,  and  as  a  result,  a  memorial  was 
sent  to  Congress  demanding  the  abolition  of  the  African 


2.  Amer.    Conflict    I,    p.    39. 

3.  Madison's  State   Papers   III,  p.   145. 

4.  Giddings,  p.   12. 


[18] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

slave  trade.  In  response  to  this  appeal  and  the  public  senti 
ment  it  created,  Congress  passed  an  Act5  making  it  unlawful 
for  any  of  our  citizens  to  engage  in  the  foreign  trade.  The 
promptness  with  which  these  petitions  were  responded  to  is 
worthy  of  note  in  view  of  the  changes  that  subsequently  took 
place  in  this  regard.  This  act  was  amended  by  acts  passed 
May  10th,  1800;  February  28th,  1803;  and  March  2d,  1807.6 
The  last-named  statute  was  evidently  enacted  in  anticipation 
of  the  expiration  of  the  time  limit  on  the  foreign  slave  trade 
as  originally  fixed  by  the  constitutional  compromise  which 
provided  for  the  cessation  of  the  trade  after  1808. 

The  southern  planters,  however,  had  definitely  determined 
to  hold  their  slaves  at  any  cost;  and  many  doubtless  thought 
that  the  union  of  the  states  would  afford  them  additional  se 
curity;  that  under  the  Union  slaves  might  be  exploited  for 
their  local  advantage  while  under  the  mutual  protection 
clause  of  the  Constitution,  the  power  of  the  nation  might  be 
called  upon  to  suppress  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  serious 
servile  uprising.  After  forcing  the  first  compromise  into  the 
Constitution,  in  connection  with  these  interests,  they  imme 
diately  set  about  the  work  of  further  safeguarding  them.  We 
had  just  entered  upon  the  age  of  our  agricultural  expansion 
and  the  planters  and  farmers  had  and  exerted  a  political  in 
fluence  hardly  less  potent  than  that  exerted  by  the  great 
commercial  and  manufacturing  corporations  of  a  century- 
later.  The  Congressional  debates  on  questions  in  opposition 
to  the  slave-holding  interests  at  this  particular  time  were 
likely  to  be  spiritless  and  tame  and  usually  resulted  in 
a  victory  for  the  planter-barons.  Almost  as  soon  as  the  na 
tional  government  was  formed,  the  southern  planters  secured 
the  passage  of  a  Fugitive  Slave  Act  (Feb.  5,  1793).  Prior  to 
the  date  of  this  Act  the  existence  of  slavery  was  entirely  de 
pendent  upon  local  regulations  and  under  local  police  power 
which  had  and  could  exercise  no  extra  territorial  jurisdiction. 
While  the  relations  of  the  slave  states  were  always  reciprocal 

5.  March  22,   1794,   Annals   of  Congress. 

6.  Act   of      1800  forbade   citizens   of      the  United   States      holding   or  owning 
property   in   any   vessel   engaged   in   the  trade;   1803   forbade   the   landing  of  any 
vessel  carrying  slaves   at  any  port  of  the  United  States   where  state   laws  pro 
hibited   slavery. 

[19] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

in  matters  connected  with  the  management  and  control  of 
slaves,  a  different  atmosphere  was  experienced  as  the  borders 
of  the  non-slave  holding  states  were  approached  where  the 
people  were  first  indifferent,  then  cool  and  finally  hostile. 
This  anti-slavery  attitude,  however,  was  sustained  by  senti 
ment  alone ;  it  was  not  then  so  clearly  seen  how  unfavorably 
the  competition  of  slaves  was  affecting  the  social  and  political 
interests  of  our  free  yeomanry.  When  the  Act  of  1807  was 
before  Congress,  therefore,  there  was  little  or  no  aggressive 
opposition  to  the  provision  in  the  sixth  section  to  the  effect 
that  "though  it  be  illegal  to  import  Negroes  as  slaves,  they, 
on  arrival,  may  be  enslaved  by  the  legislatures  of  the  states 
where  they  may  be  landed."  If  this  did  not  leave  the  door 
open  for  the  continued  importation  of  slaves,  it  certainly  had 
the  effect  of  leaving  the  latch  string  hanging  invitingly  out 
side.  Several  of  the  states  took  immediate  advantage  of  this 
clause  and  enacted  laws  to  suit  the  case.7  And  when  the 
Quakers  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Maryland 
and  Virginia  petitioned  the  First  Congress  for  the  abolition 
of  the  slave  trade,  the  petitioners  were  politely  informed  that 
"Congress  had  no  power  to  act  in  the  matter  until  after 
1808."8  It  will  be  remembered  that  it  was  not  yet  contended 
that  Congress  had  no  right  to  act  at  all  which  contention  did 
not  arise  until  many  years  later  when  it  became  the  rock  on 
which  the  ship  of  state  stranded.  But  there  was  even  at  that 
time  an  undercurrent  of  doubt  as  to  how  far  Congress  might 
go  in  the  direction  of  regulating  slavery  in  the  states.  There 
was  no  question,  however,  about  the  right  and  duty  of  Con 
gress  to  legislate  concerning  the  national  domain  not  yet 
erected  into  states.9  In  this  connection  a  resolution  was  in 
troduced  in  the  House  by  Representative  Sloan,  of  New  Jer 
sey,  in  the  early  part  of  1805,  declaring  free  all  blacks,  mu- 
lattoes,  etc.,  born  in  the  District  of  Columbia  after  July  4th 
of  that  year.  This  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  77  to  31.  Six  Rep- 


7.  Stroud,   p.  271. 

8.  Article   1,   Section   9,   Constitution   United   States. 

9.  Dred    Scott    decision    declaring    among    other    things    unconstitutional    the 
Act   excluding   slavery   from   a   portion   of   Missouri,    was   the   first   effective   at 
tack  upon  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress  over  the  Territories. 

[20] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

resentatives  from  slave  states  voted  for  the  measure — four 
from  North  Carolina,  one  from  Maryland  and  one  from  Ken 
tucky. 

When  one  reflects  upon  the  vote  on  the  Ordinance  of  July 
13th,  1787,  which  excluded  slavery  from  the  Northwest 
Territory,  the  vast  section  which  was  subsequently  carved  into 
six  powerful  states,  and  compares  the  figures  with  this  vote  in 
1805,  relative  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  it  will  be  seen  how 
solidly  and  steadily  slavery  had  advanced  during  those  two 
decades.  Besides  having  brought  upon  the  nation  no  less  than 
a  half  dozen  wars,  counting  those  with  the  Indians  and 
Mexico,  slavery  kept  our  foreign  relations  always  unsettled. 
Perhaps  one  of  the  meanest  little  acts  in  this  connection  of 
which  we  became  guilty  was  the  suspension  of  our  commer 
cial  relations  with  Hayti  in  1806  in  order  to  discourage  the 
people  of  that  island  in  their  struggle  to  maintain  the  liberty 
they  had  wrenched  from  France ;  and  this  act  was  passed 
after  a  lengthy  and  somewhat  acrimonious  debate  in  the 
House  by  a  vote  of  92  to  26.10  The  slavery  question  was  pas 
sive  from  1807  to  1816,  complications  in  connection  with  our 
foreign  relations  which  ultimately  led  up  to  the  second  war 
with  England  having  absorbed  both  popular  and  legislative 
attention.  On  March  1st,  1816,  John  Randolph,  of  Virginia, 
made  a  short  but  bitter  speech  against  the  slave  trade  and 
moved  to  instruct  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia 
to  report  a  bill  abolishing  the  trade  in  the  District.  The  mo 
tion  was  carried  and  a  bill  was  reported,  but  no  further  steps 
were  ever  taken.11  But  the  cauldron  had  again  begun  to  boil 
and  bubble,  and  so  when  the  Fifteenth  Congress  met  there 
was  an  unusually  large  number  of  petitions  for  the  abolition 
of  the  slave  trade.  All  of  these  petitions  were  read  but  no 
further  action  was  taken.  One  of  the  first  things  this  Con 
gress  did,  however,  was  to  pass  an  act  amending  the  Fugitive 


10.  This    law    was    repealed    in    1860.      England    refused    to    acknowledge    the   in 
dependence   of  Hayti,   spurned   her   offers   of   commercial   advantage,   denied   her 
West    Indian    colonies    any    intercourse    with    the    island    and    even    as    late    as 
1825   passed   an   act    forbidding   any   foreign    ship    that   had    touched   at    San   Do 
mingo   to   enter   any    port   of   Jamaica.     Vide    Frazier's    magazine,    February    22, 
1879,  p.  453;   article  by   Francis   W.   Newman. 

11.  Giddings,  p.  42. 


[21] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

Slave  Law,  and  when  an  effort  was  made  to  insert  a  clause 
intended  for  the  protection  of  free  Negroes  by  securing  them 
from  arrest  except  under  such  circumstances  as  rendered 
other  citizens  liable  to  arrest,  it  was  defeated.  And  so  we 
come  to  the  year  1819,  when  there  was  soon  to  occur  that 
great  test  of  strength  on  the  part  of  both  the  slavery  and 
anti-slavery  forces  in  Congress  over  the  admission  of  Mis 
souri. 

In  excluding  slavery  from  the  territories  ceded  by  Virginia 
and  the  Carolinas  under  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  the  Ohio  River 
was  taken  as  the  natural  dividing  line  between  slavery  and 
freedom,  the  part  north  of  that  river  was  known  as  the 
"Northwest  Territory"  and  in  this  slavery  was  abolished  by 
the  Ordinance ;  on  the  south  side  of  the  river,  known  as  the 
"Southwest  Territory,"  including  what  afterwards  formed 
some  of  the  southern  states,  like  Mississippi,  slavery  was  re 
tained  under  the  Ordinance,  but  even  here  it  was  provided 
that  no  more  slaves  should  be  brought  in  from  foreign  ports, 
that  is,  from  places  outside  the  United  States.  Some  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Northwest  Territory  complained  bitterly 
on  the  account  of  the  emancipation  of  their  slaves  without 
compensation  and  petitioned  Congress  for  relief,  but  it  was 
determined  to  be  inexpedient  to  grant  relief.  John  Randolph, 
of  Virginia,  in  reporting  for  his  committee  against  relief, 
pointed  out  the  fact  that  the  products  of  these  lands  did  not 
require  slave  labor,  besides  the  country  was  being  settled  by 
people  from  parts  where  slavery  did  not  exist,  and  that  it  was 
the  policy  of  the  government  to  discourage  slavery  in  every 
way.  But  sentiment  changed  rapidly  after  it  was  seen  that 
no  serious  attempt  was  to  be  made  to  check  the  foreign  slave 
trade  after  1808,  as  provided  by  the  Constitution.  The  fight 
over  the  conditions  under  which  territories  might  be  admitted 
to  the  Union  began  here  and  may  be  traced  down  through  the 
days  of  Reconstruction.  Time  and  again  the  question  would 
be  brought  up  in  one  way  or  another  and  in  every  instance 
the  opinion  prevailed  that  Congress  was  supreme  in  its  power 
to  govern  and  regulate.  The  slave  power  took  the  ground 
that  the  territories  being  common  property,  slave-holders 

[22] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

might  enter  them  with  their  slaves  without  regard  to  any 
regulation  that  Congress  might  make.  And  while  this  was 
generally  true,  the  fallacy  of  their  argument,  as  so  ably 
pointed  out  by  Mr.  Benton,12  was  in  the  fact  that  slaves  were 
not  generally  regarded  as  property  and  were  made  so  only 
by  statute ;  and  because  a  man  was  held  in  slavery  in  Vir 
ginia,  where  the  law  made  him  a  slave,  it  did  not  necessarily 
follow  that  he  would  be  a  slave  also  in  Massachusetts,  as  the 
Virginia  slave-holder  could  not  take  his  laws  with  him  to 
Massachusetts.  The  fight  was  renewed  over  every  new  terri 
tory  acquired  by  us  and  upon  the  admission  of  every  territory 
as  a  state.  And  while  our  leading  statesmen  and  constitution 
al  lawyers  recognized  the  question  as  one  belonging  ex 
clusively  to  the  realm  of  politics  and  therefore  within  the  de 
termination  of  Congress,  listening  to  the  repeated  appeals  of 
the  slave  power,  the  Supreme  Court  went  beyond  its  jurisdic 
tion  and  even  beyond  the  question  that  was  properly  before 
it  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and  undertook  to  nullify  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise.  This  caused  the  troubles  in  Kansas  and 
ignited  the  fires  of  the  Civil  War. 


12.  Examination   of   Dred    Scott    case    by   Thomas    H.    Benton. 


[23] 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Organization  of  the  Territory  of  Arkansas  and  the  Attempt  to 
Exclude  Slavery— The  Missouri  Struggle— Secession  Threat 
ened — General  Talmage's  Defiance. 

The  movement  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  state 
into  the  Union  in  1819  aroused  the  most  serious  and  sig 
nificant  discussion  of  the  slavery  question  that  had  occurred 
after  1787  up  to  that  time.  Several  times  between  those  dates, 
however,  there  occurred  incidents  that  evidenced  the  deter 
mination  on  the  part  of  the  South  not  only  to  hold  on  to 
slavery  but  to  extend  its  influence,  as  was  shown,  for  in 
stance,  in  its  attitude  towards  the  Indians  in  that  section. 
The  year  1808  had  come  and  passed,  yet  no  one  in  Congress 
had  called  attention  to  the  proposed  discontinuance  of  the  Af 
rican  slave  trade  according  to  the  terms  of  the  constitutional 
compromise.  The  Indians  had  been  pushed  further  back  upon 
their  reservations  to  make  more  room  for  slave  territory,  yet 
no  one  had  complained  (but  the  Indians)  ;  the  national  au 
thorities  even  endorsed  this  treatment  of  the  aborigines. 
This  complaisant  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  government  nat 
urally  encouraged  the  supporters  of  slavery  and  made  them 
bolder  in  their  fight.  Indeed,  the  government,  having  either 
plainly  condoned  the  breach  of  the  constitutional  compromise 
by  the  South  or  given  active  aid  to  the  pro-slavery  plans  of 
that  section,  was  now  in  no  position  to  attack  nor  even  to  de 
fend  against  any  assault  the  pro-slavery  party  might  make. 
But  however  it  might  have  been  with  the  politicians,  there 
was  still  much  anti-slavery  feeling  among  the  people.  It  was 
about  this  time  that  the  South  began  to  make  the  slavery 
question  a  political  issue.  The  Democrats  of  the  South  be 
gan  to  act  together  on  this  question  and  insisted  that  their 
northern  brethren  should  either  act  with  them  or  be  forced 
out  of  the  party.  And  as  the  South  was  in  control  of  the 
party  machinery,  that  section  was  able  to  dictate  the  party 

[24] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

policy  and  to  withhold  recognition  from  any  who  might  be 
regarded  as  unsound  on  this  vital  issue.  This  alignment  of 
the  South  and  the  withholding  of  party  preferment  from  all 
persons  even  suspected  of  anti-slavery  inclinations,  soon  de 
veloped  opposition  in  the  North  and  East,  principally  on  the 
part  of  individual  statesmen.  The  great  planters  of  the  South 
were  all  pro-slavery  and  at  this  time  their  influence  in  politics 
was  overwhelming.  The  influence  of  these  planters,  exercised 
through  the  Democratic  party,  was  very  similar  to  that  of  the 
great  manufacturing  and  corporate  interests  of  to-day  in  con 
nection  with  the  Republican  party. 

Just  before  the  Missouri  question  came  up  it  was  proposed 
to  set  apart  Arkansas  as  a  territory.  Mr.  Taylor,  a  Repre 
sentative  from  New  York,  moved  an  amendment  to  the  Ar 
kansas  bill  to  the  effect  that  all  persons  born  in  the  territory 
should  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  and  this  amendment 
was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  75  to  70.  On  this  occasion  ten  Rep 
resentatives  from  free  states  voted  for  slavery,  while  two 
from  slave  states  voted  against  it,  one  of  these  being  from 
North  Carolina  and  one  from  Maryland.1  The  slave  power 
having  by  this  time  waxed  so  strong,  largely  perhaps  because 
it  was  practically  let  alone  from  1807  to  1816,  the  vote  on 
this  question  caused  much  surprise.  The  slave-holders  had 
come  to  feel  that  they  should  have  as  many  states  as  were 
controlled  by  the  non-slave  holding  states  in  order  that  the 
legislative  equilibrium  might  be  maintained  between  the  sec 
tions.  This  amendment  afforded  the  first  opportunity  to  test 
the  attitude  of  the  rest  of  the  country  on  this  phase  of  the 
southerners'  contention  and  tended  to  show  that  no  such 
right  would  be  conceded.  But  while  the  opponents  of  slavery 
could  muster  up  sufficient  strength  to  have  the  amendment 
adopted,  they  had  no  complete  organization  nor  control  over 
the  machinery  in  either  house  of  Congress.  It  was  compara 
tively  easy,  therefore,  for  the  pro-slavery  men  to  have  the 
whole  matter  referred  to  a  special  committee  which  soon  re 
ported  it  back  with  the  amendment  stricken  out.  On  the 
question  of  adopting  this  committee  report,  the  vote  stood  88 

1.  Cf.    Giddings,   p.    52. 

|25J 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

to  88,  whereupon  Henry  Clay,  then  Speaker  of  the  House, 
voted  in  the  affirmative  and  the  report  was  adopted  without 
the  amendment.  An  effort  was  made  to  revive  the  amend 
ment  in  the  Senate  but  utterly  failed,  the  forces  willing  to 
stand  for  freedom  in  that  body  having  already  dwindled  to 
insignificance.  Mr.  Clay,  in  after  life,  is  said  to  have  regretted 
his  vote  on  this  occasion ;  but  he  was  a  politician  and  did  not 
have  the  courage  to  offend  the  great  planter  barons.  The 
vote  on  the  Arkansas  bill  having  shown  that  although  the 
slave  states  were  in  the  minority,  they  could  expect  no  more 
territory  at  the  hands  of  the  nation  without  a  struggle,  a 
more  aggressive  policy  was  determined  upon.  The  contest 
for  the  extension  of  slavery  from  now  on  was  forced.  It  was 
clearly  seen  that  the  right  to  count  two-thirds  of  the  slaves 
for  the  purposes  of  representation  would  not  long  save  the 
South  from  being  swamped  by  other  sections  unless  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery  should  be  extended  into  other  territory. 
How  to  extend  slavery,  then,  became  the  great  problem  for 
the  South.  It  was  useless  to  look  toward  the  North,  where 
the  benefits  of  universal  freedom  had  been  so  well  demon 
strated  by  the  prosperity  of  the  great  commercial  and  manu 
facturing  interests  in  which  the  whole  population  was  par 
ticipating,  and  where  there  was  neither  an  oligarchy  nor  a 
submerged  class.  The  people  of  the  North  had  set  their  faces 
against  slavery,  and  to  emphasize  their  position,  the  legisla 
tures  of  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Ohio  and  even 
Delaware,  had  passed  resolutions  suggesting  to  Congress 
the  advisability  of  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri  and  enjoin 
ing  their  Representatives  to  vote  and  work  to  that  end.  The 
Pennsylvania  Assembly  was  particularly  severe  in  its  ar 
raignment  of  slavery.2  When  the  Missouri  bill  came  up, 
therefore,  all  hands  in  Congress  were  ready  for  the  struggle. 
The  sharp  debates  on  the  Arkansas  measure  in  connection 
with  the  actions  just  referred  to  on  the  part  of  state  legisla 
tures  only  caused  a  sharper  line-up  on  the  Missouri  question. 
And  as  soon  as  the  Missouri  bill  was  reported,  Gen.  James 
Talmage,  representing  New  York,  was  ready  with  an  amend- 


2.  Pamphlet   Laws   of  Pennsylvania,   1819,  p.    198,   etc. 

[26] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ment  of  the  following  tenor:  "That  the  further  introduction 
of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  except  as  a  punishment 
for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted, 
shall  be  prohibited,  and  that  all  children  born  within  said 
state  after  the  admission  thereof  into  the  Union  shall  be  de 
clared  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  years."3  After  a  three 
days'  debate,  this  amendment  was  adopted  by  the  House  by 
a  vote  of  82  to  78.  It  was  sent  to  the  Senate,  but  that  body 
struck  out  the  amendment  by  a  vote  of  30  to  6.4  When  the 
House  refused  to  concur  in  this  change,  Mr.  Taylor,  also  from 
New  York,  moved  the  appointment  of  a  special  committee  to 
report  measures  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories  west  of  the  Mississippi,  but  in  making  up  this  commit 
tee  Mr.  Clay  appointed  a  majority  of  pro-slavery  men,  and 
after  deliberating  for  some  time,  Mr.  Taylor  was  compelled 
to  report  their  inability  to  agree  on  any  plan  and  the  com 
mittee  was  accordingly  discharged.  Being  unable  to  reach 
the  Missouri  question  through  the  means  of  this  committee, 
it  remained  in  statu  quo.  Soon  after  this  time  Maine  applied 
for  admission  into  the  Union,  and  the  well  known  fact  that 
this  was  to  be  a  free  state  added  fuel  to  the  flame  already 
raging  over  the  admission  of  Missouri.  Threats  of  secession 
rang  through  the  halls  of  Congress  for  the  first  time  and 
were  caught  up  and  hurled  back  with  eloquent  emphasis. 
Webster's  reply  to  Hayne  a  few  years  later,  was  a  defense, 
but  Talmage's  reply  to  Scott,  of  Missouri,  who  had  just  de 
livered  himself  of  a  tirade  threatening  the  life  of  the  Union 
in  1819,  was  a  defiance.  In  closing  his  speech,  General  Tal- 
mage  said:  "If  dissolution  of  the  Union  must  take  place,  let 
it  be  so !  If  civil  war,  which  the  gentlemen  so  much  threaten 
must  come,  let  it  come !  My  hold  on  life  is  probably  as  frail 
as  that  of  any  man  who  hears  me,  but  while  it  lasts  it  shall 
be  devoted  to  the  service  of  my  country  and  the  freedom  of 
mankind."5 

The  Maine  bill  was  attached  to  the  original  Missouri  bill 


3.  Annals  Second  Session   Fifteenth  Congress. 

4.  At   this   time  there  were  twenty  Senators   from   Free   States. 

5.  Annals,  Feb.  16,  1819,  p.  1203-6. 


[27] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

and  passed  by  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  24  to  20.  The  anti- 
slavery  amendment  was  again  inserted  when  it  reached  the 
House  by  a  vote  of  94  to  86  and  returned  to  the  Senate,  which 
body  again  struck  out  the  amendment  by  a  vote  of  27  to  15. 
And  thus  the  battle  waged  through  the  entire  session  without 
signs  of  weakening  on  either  side.  In  the  meantime,  Mr.  Clay, 
who  was  leading  the  pro-slavery  forces  in  the  House,  moved 
the  appointment  of  a  special  committee  for  the  consideration 
of  the  matter.  This  committee  was  elected  by  the  House,  so 
important  was  the  work  cut  out  for  it  to  do,  and  the  thirteen 
members  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes  were  to  form 
it.  Mr.  Clay  was  elected  first  and  was  made  chairman.  To 
this  committee  were  submitted  many  plans  for  settling  the 
difficulty,  and  among  these  was  one  formulated  by  Senator 
Thomas,  a  rabidly  pro-slavery  man  from  Illinois,  in  the  fol 
lowing  language :  "That  in  all  that  territory  ceded  by  France 
and  known  as  the  Louisiana  Territory,  which  lies  north  of  36 
degrees  and  30  minutes  north  latitude,  except  only  such  part 
thereof  as  is  included  within  the  limits  of  the  state  contem 
plated  by  this  act,  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude  other 
wise  than  as  punishment  for  crime,  etc.,  shall  be  and  is  here 
by  prohibited."  Following  this  was  a  short  fugitive  slave 
clause.  The  special  committee  thought  well  of  this  plan  and 
it  was  accordingly  reported  through  Mr.  Clay,  who  became 
its  champion.  John  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  was  a  strong  op 
ponent  of  the  bill,  but  Mr.  Clay  hastened  it  through  the 
House  and  at  once  rushed  it  over  to  the  Senate  to  defeat  Mr. 
Randolph,  who  was  preparing  to  move  for  a  reconsideration 
of  the  vote  by  which  it  had  been  adopted.6  When  Randolph 
did  get  a  chance  to  speak  he  made  a  most  bitter  attack  not 
only  upon  this  measure,  but  upon  the  whole  North  for  its  at 
titude  on  the  slavery  question.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that 
he  applied  the  term  "dough  faces"7  to  those  northern  mem 
bers  who  voted  for  the  measure. 

The  Senate  passed  the  Missouri  bill  February  17,  1820,  and 


6.  Cf.   Gidding's,  p.  65. 

7.  This    afterwards    became    a    common    term    of   derision    that   was    applied    to 
Northerners   generally;   if  Randolph   did  not   invent   it,   he   certainly   popularized 
it. 

[28] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

at  the  same  time  adopted  a  resolution  enjoining  the  state  at 
the  first  meeting  of  its  legislature  to  pass  a  law  forbidding 
free  Negroes  within  its  borders.  This  resolution,  however, 
was  defeated  in  the  House. 

The  covenants  of  this  famous  compromise  were  as  follows : 
First,  that  the  people  of  Maine  should  be  allowed  to  form  a 
state  government;  second,  that  the  people  of  Missouri  should 
be  allowed  to  form  a  state  government  restricting  slavery  to 
an  extent ;  third,  that  slavery  be  excluded  from  the  remainder 
of  the  Louisiana  Purchase. 

This  struggle  over  the  admission  of  Missouri  marks  the  be 
ginning  of  the  end  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  although 
the  advocates  of  the  system  seemed  to  have  triumphed  so 
gloriously  on  this  occasion.  Indeed  it  was  the  very  progress 
of  slavery  during  this  period  that  brought  it  to  such  an  early 
end.  It  was  its  aggressive  spirit  that  kept  the  eyes  of  the 
world  forever  upon  it,  inviting  attack  from  every  side.  The 
South,  however,  soon  gave  up  further  attempt  to  secure  any 
of  the  other  territories  of  the  Union  at  that  time  and  turned 
its  attention  to  the  acquisition  of  territory  elsewhere  which 
was  followed  by  more  disastrous  results  than  ever,  for  in  en 
deavoring  to  carry  out  these  designs  the  whole  nation  was 
involved  in  war  with  Mexico.  The  slave-holders  felt  that  they 
needed  Texas  and  virtually  undertook  to  seize  it  from  Mexico 
after  a  handful  of  Americans  squatted  on  the  land  for  a  while 
and  organized  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  a  revolt  against 
the  Mexican  government.  The  cry  was  sent  out  that  our  citi 
zens  were  being  robbed  and  dispoiled  by  Mexicans,  and  while 
everybody  knew  that  this  was  a  mere  fake,  the  slave-holders, 
whose  agents  and  tools  filled  all  the  government  offices  and 
the  army,  had  little  trouble  about  getting  the  nation  to  take 
up  their  fight.  War  was  declared  and  Texas  was  raped  from 
Mexico.  The  territory  pretended  to  start  out  as  an  inde 
pendent  state,  it  is  true,  but  that  was  all  in  the  game.  Every 
body,  from  Sam  Houston  down  or  better,  up,  knew  how  and 
for  what  purpose  we  got  into  trouble  with  our  southern 
neighbors.  The  same  ingenious  statesmanship  contemplated 
the  acquisition  of  Cuba  and  perhaps  the  whole  of  the  more  im- 

[29] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

portant  islands  in  the  West  Indies,  but  finding  the  powerful 
North  and  West  so  little  inclined  to  help  in  the  war  on  Mexi 
co,  they  had  to  make  themselves  satisfied  with  treaties  and 
Ostend  Manifestoes  until  such  a  time  as  it  was  hoped  the 
country  would  be  sufficiently  aroused  by  their  propaganda  to 
justify  the  attempt  to  go  up  against  England  and  Spain,  for 
while  they  had  the  politicians  they  knew  the  people  were 
against  them. 

A  campaign  of  education  was  immediately  inaugurated. 
The  Missouri  Compromise  just  adopted  after  a  struggle  mem 
orable  for  its  bitterness  on  the  floor  of  Congress  was  now  ap 
pealed  to  the  people  by  its  enemies.  It  became  the  text  for 
platform  orators  and  pamphleteers  and  the  subject  to  which 
editors  daily  referred.  Demagogues  reviled  it ;  politicians 
execrated  it ;  preachers  anathematized  it,  while  the  common 
people  of  the  South,  mimicing  their  masters,  sneered  at  it.  It 
was  really  a  big  question  and  big  with  the  progeny  of  evil,  of 
dark  days  for  the  Union,  of  war,  of  death  and  destruction.  It 
was  the  parting  of  the  ways  where  a  temporary  expedient 
would  no  longer  suffice  for  the  adoption  of  a  definite  course. 
We  had  to  take  a  direction  leading  to  a  more  perfect  union 
as  a  nation  of  slave-holders  or  one  leading  in  the  direction  of 
a  nation  tending  towards  the  freedom  and  equality  of  all  its 
inhabitants,  for  all  that  the  wisest  statesmanship  and  the 
most  inexorable  force  can  produce  is  a  tendency  rather  than 
a  finality  in  the  movement  of  a  nation.  At  all  events,  then, 
we  were  about  to  take  another  step  in  the  direction  of  form 
ing  the  more  perfect  union  of  which  we  speak  in  the  Preamble 
of  our  Constitution.  Questions  affecting  our  national  defence 
had  been  raised  and  settled;  likewise  questions  affecting  our 
credit.  Indeed,  all  the  various  departments  of  our  govern 
ment  had  been  organized  and  set  into  operation  with  com 
mendable  smoothness.  Perhaps  no  people,  situated  as  we 
were,  composed  of  different  states  whose  inhabitants  were 
complex,  many  of  the  original  ones  having  been  exiles  from 
different  parts  of  the  globe  with  a  difference  in  training, 
some  impelled  by  greed  for  gain,  others  by  religious  senti 
ment  and  all  under  the  spell  of  a  feeling  of  independence  and 

[30] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

freedom  from  political  restraint  at  least,  could  have  accom 
plished  more  or  done  better  in  a  given  time  in  the  construc 
tion  of  a  nation  than  did  the  fathers  of  our  Republic.  Com 
mon  interests  and  common  dangers  tended  to  cement  us  dur 
ing  the  Revolution.  After  this  struggle  it  was  but  natural  that 
communities  that  had  developed  into  states  under  their  own 
laws  and  customs  which  had  hitherto  gone  unquestioned, 
should  hesitate  about  giving  up  their  autonomy.  It  was 
not  strange,  indeed,  that  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  should 
have  had  the  courage  to  name  their  price  for  yielding  up 
many  of  their  cherished  institutions  to  be  paid  before  coming 
into  the  Union.  All  the  states  gave  up  much,  it  is  true ;  it  is 
also  true  that  much  was  reserved  in  the  grant.  And  if  the 
courts  are  still  being  appealed  to  daily  to  determine  what  the 
various  states  gave  up  and  what  they  retained  under  their 
own  jurisdiction,  what,  though  lawful  in  a  state,  may  be  a 
national  offense,  whether  one  in  Massachusetts  may  deport 
himself  like  a  Georgian,  how  much  more  unsettled  must  these 
questions  have  been  in  1820?  As  a  rule  states  do  not  give  up 
their  autonomy  without  a  struggle.  The  German  Empire, 
like  most  other  such  modern  combinations,  was  welded 
together  by  a  force  that  won  for  Bismarck  the  name  of  the 
"Iron  Chancellor."  The  states  forming  our  Union  generally 
quietly  acquiesced,  only  some  in  the  southern  section  demand 
ed  that  they  be  allowed  to  hold  their  slaves — black  slaves  and 
people  of  an  alien  race.  Thus  it  was  agreed  and  thus  the 
Union  was  formed,  but  to  what  extent  they  might  hold  their 
slaves  outside  of  their  own  territory  was  quite  another  ques 
tion,  although  there  is  a  tacit  agreement  implied  in  the  Or 
dinance  of  1787  that  slavery  should  not  be  extended.  The 
right  of  extension,  however,  was  at  once  asserted  by  the 
South,  while  the  North  hedged.  In  1857,  Taney,  more  than  a 
generation  later,  undertook  to  settle  the  debate  by  his  Dred 
Scott  Decision,  but  he  only  excited  the  contestants  to  blows 
— blows  which,  if  they  had  been  applied  to  Pinckney  and  his 
few  followers  in  the  Constitutional  Convention,  might  have 
settled  the  controversy  in  four  days  without  bloodshed,  which 
now  lasted  for  four  years  and  drenched  the  country  in  blood 
before  the  trouble  ended  at  Appomattox. 

[31] 


CHAPTER  III 


President  Monroe  and  His  Cabinet  on  the  Principles  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise — Slaves  as  Personal  Property — Indians  Succor 
Escaping  Slaves— The  Exiles  of  Florida— Battle  of  "Blout's 
Fort" — The  First  Seminole  War — The  Ejectment  of  Indians 
From  Georgia — Second  Seminole  War — Attack  Upon  Major 
Dade. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  being  the  question  of  the  hour, 
made  so,  as  we  have  observed,  by  the  very  people  who  should 
have  been  most  interested  in  having  it  forgotten,  President 
Monroe,  soon  after  taking  his  seat,  propounded  to  his  Cabinet 
the  following  questions :  First :  "Has  Congress  power  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories ;  second :  Is  the  Missouri 
Compromise  constitutional."  So  far  as  is  known,  the  Presi 
dent  was  unbiased  and  sought  the  honest  unbiased  opinion  of 
his  advisers.  He  did  not  push  for  an  answer  and  each  mem 
ber  had  time  to  study  the  questions  and  give  a  written  reply 
and  all  answered  both  questions  in  the  affirmative.1  John 
C.  Calhoun  was  perhaps  the  most  distinguished  member  of 
this  Cabinet,  but  it  appears  that  he  did  not  hesitate  to  reply 
in  unison  with  his  colleagues.  It  is  true  that  at  that  particu 
lar  moment  the  great  party  leaders,  especially  in  the  North 
and  West,  were  making  a  heroic  effort  to  make  the  people 
believe  that  the  slavery  question  had  been  settled  and  Clay 
was  being  lauded  for  the  part  he  had  taken  in  it,  Mr.  Cal 
houn  and  the  rest  doubtless  felt  that  it  was  safer  for  their 
personal  popularity  to  appear  to  be  in  accord  with  this  ebu- 
lition  of  sentiment,  although  it  proved  to  be  only  momentary, 
rather  than  to  be  placed  in  a  position  where  he  might  be 
charged  with  reflecting  on  a  public  idol  through  jealousy,  for 
Mr.  Clay  was  immensely  popular  at  that  time.  Regardless 
of  Cabinets  and  of  Calhouns,  however ;  regardless  of  the  shouts 
of  the  northern  populace  and  the  thunders  of  the  press,  the 
pro-slavery  magnates  sat  in  judgment  on  this  instrument  and 


1.  Giddings,  p.  65. 

[32] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

condemned  it.  Mighty  Caesar  spoke  and  the  thunders  of  the 
northern  dailies  became  a  whimper  and  the  great  statesmen 
of  the  North  began  to  apologize  and  excuse.  A  move  was  im 
mediately  made  to  have  Congress  declare  slaves  to  be  "prop 
erty."  If  Congress  should  say  they  were  "property"  then  con 
sistent  objection  could  not  be  made  to  such  property  being 
carried  by  the  owner  to  any  part  of  Missouri  or  elsewhere  as 
might  be  found  desirable.  The  question  was  raised  in  connec 
tion  with  the  claims  of  one  D'Autreve  for  the  loss  of  slaves 
in  the  battle  of  New  Orleans  in  1814.  The  debate  in  the  House 
was  long  and  exhaustive,,  extending  over  three  weeks.  The 
thoroughness  of  this  debate  and  the  care  exercised  to  avoid 
giving  an  affirmative  answer  was  doubtless  due  in  part  at 
least  to  the  fact  that  an  affirmative  answer  would  have  meant 
the  immediate  filing  of  numerous  other  claims  for  the  loss 
of  slaves  and  alleged  slaves  through  the  exigencies  of  the  war 
of  1812  in  which  many  black  men  participated,  both  with 
Jackson  at  New  Orleans  and  with  Perry  on  the  Lakes.  The 
House,  however,  by  an  overwhelming  vote  resolved  that 
slaves  "were  not  such  property  as  could  be  paid  for  by  the 
United  States  Government  under  the  circumstances."  Thus 
the  question  was  left  open,  although  on  this  particular  oc 
casion  only  32  voted  in  the  affirmative.  Obviously  an  answer 
so  uncertain,  indefinite  and  vague  could  not  be  satisfactory. 
After  repeated  failures  in  Congress  where  the  question  had 
to  be  debated  in  the  open  by  men  who  were  responsible  to 
their  constituents,  the  slave-holders  resorted  to  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  for  the  relief  which  Congress  denied 
them.  This  august  body,  after  hearing  or  pretending  to  hear 
the  case  brought  before  them  involving  the  question,  solemn 
ly  declared  slaves  to  be  "personal  property."  Much  less  could 
hardly  have  been  expected  from  this  Court,  immune  from 
public  attack  and  composed,  as  it  was,  of  men  appointed  either 
directly  or  indirectly  by  the  slave  influence.  Judges  are  none 
the  less  men  and  as  such  are  susceptible  to  all  the  ordinary 
human  influences.  It  was  not  strange,  therefore,  that 
men  born  and  reared  either  slave-holders  or  among  slave 
holders,  should  see  things  from  a  slave-holder's  point  of  view. 


[33] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

Besides,  if  slaves  were  not  property,  what  were  they?  They 
could  be  bought,  sold,  mortgaged  or  even  given  away.  And 
yet  if  they  were  property,  why  did  the  Constitution  recog 
nize  them  as  men  to  the  extent  of  having  them  counted  and 
used  as  a  basis  for  representation?  Why  were  men  sitting  in 
Congress  as  the  avowed  representatives  of  a  slave  population 
instead  of  the  representatives  of  so  many  cattle  or  hogs? 
But  this  question  was  not  before  the  Court;  if  it  had  been, 
doubtless  some  answer  would  have  been  found  which  if  not 
satisfactory  to  all  would  have  been  satisfactory  at  least  to 
the  political  party  to  which  a  majority  of  the  judges  owed 
their  appointment.  For 'after  all,  law  is  but  a  set  of  rules  and 
regulations  prescribed  by  the  majority  which  the  rest  of  us 
must  obey  under  penalty  which  the  stronger  may  always  in 
flict  upon  the  weaker  with  impunity.  When  a  statute  is  pass 
ed,  it  indicates  what  a  majority  of  the  people  want  and  the 
judge  who  undertakes  to  construe  it  contrary  to  this  majority 
sentiment  will  not  only  become  unpopular  but  is  likely  to 
have  his  usefulness  impaired;  and  there  is  no  question  about 
the  fact  that  public  sentiment  at  this  time  was  pro-slavery. 
But  even  this  decree  of  the  Supreme  Court  could  not  keep 
this  question  from  constantly  recurring.  During  the  Revolu 
tionary  War  and  the  exciting  times  immediately  following, 
the  supervision  over  the  southern  slaves  seems  to  have  been 
particularly  loose.  This  situation  was  perhaps  due  in  part  to 
the  absence  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  war,  and  partly  to  the 
ever  present  memories  of  San  Domingo,  and  it  was  doubtless 
felt  safer  to  exercise  less  restraint.  At  all  events  a  great 
many  slaves  were  allowed  to  escape  from  Georgia  and  the 
Carolinas,  the  most  of  them  having  taken  refuge  among  the 
Creek  Indians,  then  occupying  a  reservation  adjoining 
Georgia;  others  went  even  further  and  found  shelter  among 
the  Seminoles  in  Florida  which  was  then  Spanish  territory. 
The  aggrieved  slave-holders  not  only  did  not  ask  outside  aid 
to  apprehend  the  fugitives  but  did  not  even  take  steps  in  the 
direction  of  trying  to  secure  these  escapes  for  nearly  a  gen 
eration  and  then  they  only  asked  and  secured  from  Congress 
the  right  to  go  among  the  Indians  to  make  the  search. 

[34] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Congress  entered  into  a  treaty  with  the  Creeks  under  which 
their  territory  could  be  visited  by  persons  claiming  these  al 
leged  fugitives,  but  no  one  even  thought  of  asking  the  gov 
ernment  to  go  further.  It  would  be  quite  incorrect  to  think 
of  these  hunted  persons  as  fugitive  slaves  for  the  reason  that 
most  of  the  original  ones  had  died  and  the  remainder, 
together  with  their  children,  had  become  so  intermingled 
with  the  Indians  as  to  make  identification  impossible.  Those 
who  joined  the  Seminoles  especially  became  completely  ab 
sorbed  by  intermarriage  with  the  natives.  Almost  the  whole 
tribe  became  affected  and'changed  to  Indian-Negroes.  Pur 
suant  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  just  referred  to,  and  in  strict 
recognition  of  the  fact  that  slavery  was  a  local  affair,  a  party 
of  young  men  from  Georgia  repaired  to  this  Indian  reserva 
tion  on  what  they  facetiously  called  "a  nigger  hunt."  As  a 
hunting  party  they  were  most  successful  in  finding  their 
game,  but  unfortunately  they  found  trouble  with  it,  for  the 
Negroes  showed  fight  and  did  fight,  and  as  a  consequence  of 
this  fact,  few,  very  few  of  those  who  went  on  the  "hunt"  re 
turned  home  again  to  tell  of  the  sport.2  The  fate  of  this 
expedition  made  a  profound  impression  upon  the  minds  of 
slave-holders.  Toussaint  L'Ouverture  had  just  driven  the 
French  out  of  the  West  Indies  and  had  done  it  without  an 
ally  and  practically  without  arms  other  than  those  he  cap 
tured.  And  the  French  were  known  to  be  of  the  most  valor 
ous  blood  of  Europe  and  well  trained  in  military  tactics  and 
the  use  of  arms ;  and  now  these  escaped  slaves  or  their  de 
scendants  were  showing  a  fighting  spirit  that  boded  ill  for  the 
continuance  of  slavery  without  a  strong  arm  to  cope  with  it. 
Under  the  circumstances  the  self-sufficiency  of  states  or  state 
rights  had  to  be  thrown  to  the  winds  and  the  power  of  the 
whole  nation  resorted  to  for  protection ;  and  all  the  machin 
ery  of  the  national  government  at  the  time  being  in  the  hands 
of  the  slave  power,  there  was  not  the  least  difficulty  in  secur 
ing  national  support.  But  as  it  was  found  to  be  no  picnic  or 
holiday  trip  for  young  Georgians  to  invade  the  Indian  reser 
vations  in  quest  of  alleged  slaves,  Gen.  Andrew  Jackson  was 


2.  Giddings'   Exiles   of   Florida. 

[35] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

sent  in  1816,  with  a  strong  detachment  of  Federal  troops  to 
try  conclusions  with  these  alleged  fugitives.    He  found  many 
of  them  in  the  northern  part  of  Florida,  some  three  hundred 
of  them  entrenched  in  "Blout's  Fort."  The  gathering  of  these 
men  in  anything  like  a  fort  was  a  tactical  error  that  proved 
most  costly  to  the  defenders.     From  the  trackless  forest,  en 
tangled    swamps    and    everglades  a  guerilla    warfare    might 
have  been  effectively  waged  and  sustained  to  the  great  dis 
comfiture  of  slave-holders  and  their  agents.     For  these  Ne 
groes  had  again  become  real  children  of  the  forest  and  knew 
every  hedge  and  hog  path,  every  bog  and  fen,  every  hollow 
tree  and  hiding  place  in  that  district  of  wild  things  and  wilder 
men.  The  search  after  these  alleged  fugitives  with  gun  and  dog 
could  not  have  been  more  aptly  described  than  as  a  "hunt." 
The  situation  was  viewed  in  a  far  different  and  more  serious 
light,  however,  after  the  unmerciful  disaster  by  which  this 
last  "hunting  party"  was  overwhelmed.    It  became  a  question 
that  loomed  large  in  the  eyes  of  the  planters  in  the  affected 
districts ;  neighborhood  hunting  parties  and  even  local  militia 
could  not  be  trusted  to  cope  with  it.    Nothing  short  of  a  de 
tachment  of  United  States  troops  would  be   sufficient.     Ac 
cordingly,   General   Jackson   was   sent   to   crush   these    exiles 
with   a   part   of   the   United   States   Army.    General   Jackson 
promptly  blew  up  the  fort  and  practically  wiped  out  its  de 
fenders.3    To  be  more  exact,  of  the  333  persons  found  there, 
270  were  killed,  60  wounded  and  3  escaped.   In  this  great  mili 
tary  achievement  General  Jackson  had  the  assistance  of  Gen 
eral  Gaines  and  Colonel  Clinch,  all  of  the  United  States  Army. 
And  so  grateful  was  the  nation  for  this  splendid  work  and 
conspicuous    exhibition    of    gallantry,    Congress,    twenty-two 
years  later,  voted  General  Jackson  and  his  associates  the  sum 
of   $5000.4      Other   Negroes    who     were    in    the     vicinity    of 
Blout's  Fort  receded  further  into  Florida  swamps  where  they 
were  cordially  received  by  the  Indians.    But  this  friendly  re 
ception  on  the  part  of  the  Indians  was  dearly  paid  for,  as  it 
was  made  the  pretext  for  the  first  Seminole  War. 


3.  Giddings'  Hist.,  p.   101. 

4.  Exiles   of   Florida,   p.  42. 


[36] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Southern  planters  never  had  any  good  blood  for  the  In 
dians,  any  way,  for  they  would  not  permit  themselves  to  be 
enslaved,  and  not  only  this,  they  are  said  to  have  entertained 
no  very  serious  scruples  about  making  raids  upon  the  stock 
of  their  white  neighbors.  And  when  we  add  to  all  of  this  the 
influence  naturally  exercised  upon  the  minds  of  black  slaves, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Indians  should  have  been  regard 
ed  as  a  personal  menace  to  the  interests  of  the  planters.  A 
fugitive  slave  who  might  be  able  to  reach  the  Indian  Reser 
vation  was  generally  pretty  safe,  for  both  these  Indians  and 
their  Maroon  allies,  could  shoot  and  shoot  straight  from  behind 
trees  and  shrubbery.  Had  it  not  been  for  these  conditions  a 
much  longer  period  would  doubtless  have  elapsed  before  the 
Cherokees  would  have  been  called  upon  to  weep  farewell  to 
their  Georgia,  where  their  ancestors  had  for  ages  roamed  and 
ranged  along  the  shimmering  waters  of  the  Savannah.  Per 
haps  they  never  would  have  been  frocibly  ejected  had  not  the 
interest  of  slavery  demanded  it.  And  these  are  the  same  con 
ditions  that  induced  us  to  secure  Florida  from  Spain  in  1821. 

Long  periods  of  peace  and  prosperity  always  result  in  op 
pression  of  some  sort  and  are  followed  naturally  by  a  period 
of  seething  discontent.  If  peace  and  prosperity  should  con 
tinue  unbroken  for  a  decade  the  people  will  find  themselves 
beginning  to  break  up  into  classes ;  if  the  conditions  prevail 
longer  society  will  begin  to  develop  into  castes.  The  humane 
feeling  and  gratitude  inspired  by  the  successful  termination 
of  the  Revolution  by  which  our  independence  was  won  had 
become  stagnant  by  1820  and  quite  dead  by  1828.  As  these 
feelings  disappeared,  the  feeling  of  aristocracy  and  caste 
arose  and  waxed  strong,  especially  in  connection  with  our 
southern  planters.  Cotton  became  king  and  the  planters, 
princes  of  the  realm.  There  was  little  hope  of  political  pre 
ferment  except  for  those  who  kow-towed  to  these  grandees. 
Little  or  no  attention  was  paid  to  any  in  public  places  but  the 
southern  gentleman  who  contemptuously  referred  to  the 
people  of  other  sections  as  "dough  faces"  or  "mud  sills."  It 
was  only  natural,  then,  that  the  South  should  furnish  the 
man  to  succeed  John  Quincy  Adams  as  President;  natural  it 

[37] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

was  also,  that  this  man  should  be  of  the  type  of  Andrew  Jack 
son,  though  Jackson  was  the  first  man  of  his  particular  class 
ever  to  fill  that  high  office,  being  a  typical  poor  white  man — 
coarse  and  uncultured.  But  he  had  shown  his  mettle  at  New 
Orleans  and  earned  some  fame  and  the  gratitude  of  the  na 
tion  ;  he  had  also  blown  up  "Blout's  Fort,"  by  which  he  earned 
more  fame  and  the  gratitude  of  the  slave-holders.  No  better 
man  could  possibly  have  been  selected  for  carrying  out  the 
program  and  designs  of  the  southern  planters  in  1828.  The 
Indians  had  to  be  immediately  removed  from  their  reserva 
tions  in  Georgia  and  Florida ;  anti-slavery  literature  had  to  be 
excluded  from  the  mails  and  the  demands  of  slavery  yielded 
to  without  question  or  debate  in  Congress.  There  was  need 
of  a  rough  and  ready  man  in  the  White  House,  and  who  could 
serve  better  than  "Old  Hickory?"  What  if  the  Indians  should 
revolt  at  being  ejected  and  involve  us  in  a  second  Seminole 
War  in  1835,  the  hero  of  Blout's  Fort  would  be  equal  to  the 
occasion.  This  second  war  was  really  commenced,  however, 
by  an  attack  by  the  Maroons,  as  these  Indian-Negroes  were 
called,  upon  Major  Dade  while  he  was  moving  a  detachment 
of  United  States  troops  from  Fort  Brooke  to  Fort  King,  Fla., 
a  distance  of  some  one  hundred  and  thirty  miles.  The  route 
undertaken  lay  through  a  wilderness  with  which  Major  Dade 
was  unfamiliar  and  the  Maroons  lay  in  wait,  fell  upon  the  un 
suspecting  brigade,  slew  the  leader  and  his  entire  force.  Thus 
sadly  was  the  slaughter  at  "Blout's  Fort"  avenged,  and  thus 
slavery  crossed  another  tributary  of  blood  which  flowed  on 
to  its  ocean  in  1861. 


[38] 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Twenty-fourth  Congress— Anti-Slavery  Literature  Excluded 
from  the  Mails— The  Right  of  Petition  Attacked— Defended  by 
John  Quincy  Adams — The  Constitution  of  Arkansas  Prohibit 
ing  Emancipation — The  Jackson  Administration — Anti-Slavery 
Men  Leave  South — The  Agitation  in  the  North  Intensified — 
Effect  of  the  Murder  of  Lovejoy — The  Accession  of  Van  Buren 
— The  Twenty-fifth  Congress — Secession  of  Representatives 
from  Virginia,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia — Calhoun  Binds 
Congress  to  Support  Slavery — Giddings  Enters  Congress — The 
Twenty-sixth  Congress  Has  Four  Anti-Slavery  Men — The  Elec 
tion  of  Harrison  as  President — The  Abrogation  of  the  "Gag 
Rule." 

Great  impetus  was  given  to  the  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question  in  this  country  in  the  early  part  of  the  decade  be 
tween  1830  and  1840,  by  the  situation  connected  with  such 
affairs  in  the  English  colonies.  Lord  Mansfield  had  long  since 
decided  the  Somerset  Case  which  held  that  slavery  was  in 
compatible  with  life  in  England.  After  a  lengthy  and  trying 
agitation  by  such  men  as  Wilberforce,  Clarkson,  Sharpe  and 
George  Thompson,  all  slaves  in  the  English  colonies  were 
freed  by  an  Act  of  Parliament  in  about  1833.  The  result  of 
this  was  to  cause  the  agitation  in  the  United  States  to  assume 
a  tone  at  once  more  hopeful  and  aggressive  under  the  leader 
ship  of  such  men  as  William  Lloyd  Garrison.  But  the  discus 
sion  here  was,  nevertheless,  still  in  the  stage  that  might  be 
termed  purely  ethical  and  academic.  No  one  had  yet  dared 
to  call  for  a  vote  or  to  appeal  to  the  ballot.  The  publication 
of  fugitive  and  occasional  disquisitions  on  the  subject,  now 
began  to  give  place  to  a  stream  of  literature  that  was  more 
constant,  more  polemic  in  nature  and  more  severe  in  criticism 
of  the  slavery  system  and  its  supporters.  Benjamin  Lundy 
had  begun  to  publish  his  "Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation" 
at  St.  Clairsville,  Ohio,  in  1821,  and,  during  the  same  year, 
moved  to  Steubenville,  Tenn.,  where  he  continued  his  publi 
cation  until  1828,  when  he  moved  to  Baltimore,  where  he  was 
joined  by  Garrison.  But  even  before  Lundy  started  his  paper, 

[39] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

Elihu  Embree,  another  Quaker,  had  begun  the  publication  of 
his  ''Emancipator,"  at  Jonesburough,  Tenn.,  which  is  said  to 
have  been  the  first  paper  or  periodical  ever  regularly  pub 
lished  in  this  country  with  the  sole  aim  and  object  of  opposing 
slavery.1  Garrison  began  his  work  as  a  publisher  of  anti- 
slavery  literature  in  1828  while  editing  the  "Journal  °*  tne 
Times,"  a  paper  established  for  the  purpose  of  advocating  the 
election  of  John  Quincy  Adams  to  the  Presidency.  "Walker's 
Appeal"  made  its  appearance  in  1829.  Walker  was  a  Negro,  a 
barber  by  trade,  who  had  gone  to  Boston  from  the  South, 
where  by  industrious  application,  he  had  picked  up  a  fair 
knowledge  of  reading  and  writing.  His  little  pamphlet,  of 
some  70  pages,  was  an  essay  on  the  cruelties  of  slavery  and 
it  created  a  sensation,  not  so  much  because  of  any  particular 
literary  merit,  but  because  it  was  a  forceful  arraignment  of 
slave-holders  and  was  regarded  as  a  remarkable  thing  for  a 
Negro  to  accomplish.2  In  the  hope  of  shutting  off  this  flow 
of  anti-slavery  literature,  upon  the  assembling  of  the  Twenty- 
fourth  Congress,  President  Jackson  recommended  the  enact 
ment  of  a  law  excluding  such  matter  from  the  mails,  on  the 
grounds  df  its  being  "incendiary."  To  call  these  sharp  thrusts 
from  the  pen  of  Garrison,  the  masterful  polemics  of  men  like 
Parker3  and  the  scholarly  effusions  emanating  from  men 
like  Channing,  all  aiming  and  intending  to  pillory  slave 
holders  and  to  hold  them  up  to  the  execration  of  mankind, 
"incendiary"  could  hardly  be  regarded  as  any  great  misappli 
cation  of  the  term  or  a  wanton  abuse  of  language.  The  press 
had  already  popularized  the  terms  "dough  faces"  and  "mud 
sills"  as  applied  to  the  people  of  the  North  and  West,  and  the 
same  medium  was  now  rapidly  popularizing  the  term  "dirty 
slave-holders"  in  connection  with  the  designation  of  the 
southern  gentry.  It  is  not  hard  to  see  or  to  understand  how 
these  were  mutually  insulting  to  the  people  of  these  re 
spective  sections.  Congress,  therefore,  did  not  hesitate  to 
adopt  President  Jackson's  recommendation  for  the  passage 


1.  Garrison,  Vol.  1,  p.  88. 

2.  Williams'  Hist.,  p.  553. 

3.  Rev.  Dr.  Theodore  Parker  and  Rev.   Dr.  William   E.   Channing,  both  noted 
pulpit   orators,   of   Boston. 

[40] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

of  a  law  against  the  circulation  of  anti-slavery  literature.4 
The  efforts  of  Postmaster  General  Kendall  to  enforce  this 
statute  caused  such  a  debauchery  and  demoralization  of  the 
Federal  mail  service  as  the  country  never  witnessed  before 
nor  since.  Mail  matter  addressed  to  persons  suspected  of  being 
anti-slavery  was  held  up  and  rifled,  post  offices  were  ran 
sacked  and  all  sorts  of  riotous  excesses  indulged  in  by  hood 
lums  and  zealots  under  the  color  of  this  law,  in  the  pretended 
search  for  anti-slavery  literature.  Suspicion  ran  riot  sharply 
reminding  one  of  the  situation  in  England  in  the  days  of  the 
alleged  Popish  and  Rye  House  Plots.  To  say  that  great  in 
dignation  was  felt  by  tho^e  disposed  to  resent  this  interfer 
ence  on  the  part  of  the  government  with  their  personal 
choice  as  to  what  they  should  be  allowed  to  read,  was  to  put 
it  mildly.  There  was  a  howl  of  protest  that  gave  the  South 
a  great  deal  of  unfavorable  advertising  and  it  was  soon  made 
apparent  that  the  statute  was  so  impractical  that  attempts  to 
enforce  it  would  be  futile  and  they  were  accordingly  given 
up.  By  the  time  Mrs.  Stowe  began  to  publish  her  "Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin,"  all  efforts  to  exclude  such  matter  from  the 
mails  had  ceased.  The  fact  that  such  a  law  could  be  passed, 
however,  without  even  the  most  feeble  opposition  in  Con 
gress  tends  to  show  not  only  the  great  overwhelming  in 
fluence  of  slavery  throughout  the  country  at  the  time,  but 
how  recklessly  that  influence  was  exerted. 

Under  Jackson,  the  slave  power  reached  its  zenith.  The 
President  led  it ;  Congress  fed  it ;  the  northern  press  flattered 
it,  and  the  nation  bowed  to  it.  But  this  arrogance  on  the  part 
of  the  slave  power  drew  out  and  intensified  the  opposition. 
Petitions  began  to  be  poured  into  Congress  daily  demanding 
the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Congressmen  were  accustomed  to  receiving  such  petitions 
from  Quakers,  but  these  memorials  were  not  from  Quakers. 
It  was  seen  that  Congress  would  soon  again  be  embroiled  in 
another  serious  controversy  over  the  slavery  question,  not 
withstanding  the  Missouri  Compromise,  unless  steps  should 


4.  Cf.   Morse's   Van    Buren,   p.   36;    Benton's   Thirty   Years'   Review,   Vol.   I,   p. 

575. 


[41] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

be  immediately  taken  to  prevent  it.  Mr.  Pinckney,  of  South 
Carolina,  therefore,  at  the  beginning  of  this  session,  intro 
duced  a  series  of  three  resolutions  to  the  following  effect : 
First,  That  Congress  has  no  power  to  interfere  with  slavery 
in  the  states ;  second,  That  it  would  be  wrong  to  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  third,  That  petitions, 
etc.,  relating  to  slavery  be  laid  on  the  table  without  debate.5 
These  resolutions  were  adopted  practically  without  opposition 
and  for  ten  years  were  more  or  less  strictly  enforced.  At  this 
time  there  was  in  the  House  perhaps  the  most  remarkable 
character  in  all  its  history,  in  the  person  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  who  had  enjoyed  every  honor  within  the  gift  of  the 
nation  and  who  was  now  representing  Massachusetts.  Mr. 
Adams  opposed  this  blow  at  the  constitutional  right  of  peti 
tion  with  great  energy,  and  continued  to  oppose  it  during  the 
long  time  the  rule  was  in  force  and  he  lived  to  see  the  ob 
noxious  rule  abrogated  on  his  motion.  One  of  the  things  that 
tended  to  increase  the  number  of  memorials  to  Congress  at 
this  time  was  the  application  of  Arkansas  for  admission  to 
the  Union.  The  so-called  border  states  or  those  touching 
and  bounding  on  the  slave  states  were  always  a  source  of 
annoyance  to  slave  holders.  The  sight  of  such  territory  al 
ways  made  the  eyes  of  the  slave  glisten  for  freedom  and 
tempted  him  to  run  away.  Then,  too,  there  were  individuals 
in  the  slave  states,  and  especially  in  these  border  states,  who 
were  as  bitterly  opposed  to  slavery  as  the  rankest  Abolition 
ist,  men* and  women  as  deeply  touched  with  the  spirit  of  hu 
manity,  as  deeply  grieved  over  the  groans  and  tears  of  the 
slaves.  Some  of  these  would  break  away  and  leave  like  the 
Grimke  sisters  and  Birney.  Statistics  show  that  at  the  time 
of  the  war  there  were  perhaps  ten  times  as  many  people  liv 
ing  in  the  North  who  were  born  in  the  South  as  there  were 
of  those  who  had  gone  from  the  North  to  make  their  homes 
in  the  South.  Yet  there  still  remained  in  the  South  many  per 
sons  of  superior  culture  and  enlightened  Christianity  who 
chafed  under  the  tyrannical  rule  of  the  majority.  Then,  too, 


5.  Register  First  Session  Twenty-fourth  Congress,  Feb.  8,  1836.  Right  of  pe 
tition  expressly  denied  to  slaves  by  vote  of  House,  Feb.  11,  1837.  Globe,  Second 
Session,  Twenty-fourth  Congress,  p.  184. 

[42] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

there  were  persons  in  the  border  states,  in  fact  in  all  the 
states  who  were  as  rabidly  pro-slavery  as  any  to  be  found 
about  the  burning  marls  of  Georgia,  persons  who  could  leer 
as  complacently  on  slaves  shivering  on  the  damp  dirt  floor 
of  the  slave  pen  as  the  most  fiendish  slave  trader  to  be  found 
in  the  swirling  maelstrom  of  the  infamous  traffic  in  Missis 
sippi  or  Louisiana.  One  of  the  most  serious  problems  the 
slave-holder  had  to  confront  was  as  to  how  to  keep  the  slaves 
furthest  removed  from  the  sight  of  free  black  men,  to  keep 
them  under  the  impression  that  all  black  people  were  slaves, 
hopeless  and  abandoned.  The  individual  slave-holder,  there 
fore,  who  had  the  hardihpod  to  liberate  his  slaves,  imme 
diately  lost  caste  and  was  regarded  as  but  little  better  than  a 
criminal,  and  generally  had  to  leave  the  community  in  order 
to  escape  the  scorn  and  contumely  of  his  neighbors.  Indeed, 
there  was  no  place  in  society  for  a  man  without  slaves  in 
slave  communities,  and  the  result  was  that  all  but  the  poor 
whites  held  slaves  and  the  poor  whites  suffered  under  a 
heavier  load  of  contempt  than  even  the  slaves.  No  respect 
able  white  man  could  work  with  his  hands,  and  as  a  conse 
quence,  the  poor  whites  trying  to  be  respectable,  did  not  work 
at  all.  Thus  by  degrading  labor,  slavery  made  it  quite  impos 
sible  for  any  except  the  wealthier  classes  to  live  comfortably 
in  the  South.  The  institution  completely  robbed  the  com 
munity  of  a  middle  class,  the  backbone  of  society.  Indeed, 
none  had  a  more  just  cause  for  thanking  the  Lord  and  Abra 
ham  Lincoln  for  liberating  the  slaves  than  the  poor  white 
people  of  the  South.  Landless,  moneyless  and  with  no  occu 
pation  except  that  of  overseer,  they  were  dubbed  "trash"  by 
the  colored  folks  while  the  pampered  master  class  smiled  de 
risively  at  the  appellation.  The  best  of  them  were  the  mean 
est  sort  of  rascals.  But  as  great  as  was  the  menace  of  this 
poor  white  mass  to  the  rich  man's  sheep  pen,  corn  crib  and 
hen  roost,  the  danger  of  having  free  Negroes  at  large  in  the 
community  was  regarded  as  being  far  greater.  The  Territory 
of  Arkansas,  therefore,  before  applying  for  admission  to  the 
Union,  adopted  a  constitution  expressly  prohibiting  its  citi 
zens  from  emancipating  their  slaves.  This  provision  naturally 

[43] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

aroused  a  storm  of  protest  and  an  insistent  demand  for  its 
elimination  before  admitting  the  state.  The  protests  were 
vain,  however,  except  for  the  fact  that  they  served  to  offer 
fresh  points  of  attack  against  slavery  in  the  Congressional 
debates.  Arkansas  was  duly  admitted  in  1836  with  its  con 
stitution  unamended.  This  instrument  was  regarded  as  be 
ing  extreme,  even  by  many  pro-slavery  men,  who  saw  in  it 
an  additional  weapon  in  the  hands  of  their  enemies.  The 
Democratic  party  was  never  better  organized  than  under  the 
administration  of  President  Jackson,  who  was  the  embodi 
ment  of  the  highest  ideals  of  its  controlling  wing,  the  element 
pledged  to  the  protection  and  propagation  of  slavery.  Under 
Jackson's  administration,  anti-slavery  men  were  either  driven 
out  of  the  South  or  silenced.  The  Lundys  and  Embrees  could 
no  longer  remain  in  Tennessee  and  Garrison  was  clapped  into 
jail  in  Baltimore,  where  he  was  incarcerated  for  seven  weeks 
for  his  attack  upon  one  Captain  Todd,  a  Yankee  skipper, 
whom  Garrison  charged  with  smuggling  slaves  into  the 
South.  Of  course  Garrison  could  not  sustain  the  charge  be 
fore  a  Baltimore  jury  and  was  consequently  convicted  of  libel 
and  sentenced  to  prison,  where  he  remained  until  Arthur 
Tappan,  Esq.,  of  New  York,  paid  the  fine  and  secured  his  re 
lease.  The  pathetic  story  of  Rev.  Charles  T.  Torrey  may  still 
be  read  engraved  upon  the  monument  erected  over  his  grave 
in  Auburn,  the  cemetery  in  Boston  where  so  many  of  the 
illustrious  sons  of  Massachusetts  sleep.  Young  and  enthu 
siastic  and  zealous  for  what  he  thought  was  right,  Mr.  Tor 
rey  went  to  Baltimore  in  1846  to  work  in  the  interest  of  the 
slaves,  went  to  prison,  went  to  his  death  there  at  the  age  of 
thirty-three.  When  it  was  known  that  this  young  clergy 
man's  health  had  been  broken  and  that  he  was  dying  of  con 
sumption,  hundreds  of  people  signed  a  petition  to  the  Gover 
nor  of  Maryland  praying  for  a  pardon,  for  the  release  of  Tor 
rey  that  he  might  come  home  to  die,  but  these  prayers  were 
in  vain  and  he  was  doomed  to  die  in  his  dungeon.  Nor  was 
the  sentiment  of  Boston  a  great  deal  better  than  that  of  Bal 
timore  at  this  time.  On  being  released  from  his  Baltimore 
prison  Garrison  went  to  Boston,  where  he  immediately  began 

[44] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

to  publish  his  "Liberator"  and  was  immediately  mobbed  by 
the  "respectable  citizens"  of  the  city,  who,  after  destroying 
his  little  printing  office  and  breaking  up  his  press,  dragged 
the  intrepid  editor  through  the  streets  with  a  rope  about  his 
body.  But  Garrison  fared  a  little  better  than  Rev.  Elijah  P. 
Lovejoy  did  at  Alton,  111.,  in  1837.  Lovejoy's  press  was  not 
only  broken  up  and  thrown  into  the  river,  but  Lovejoy  was 
murdered.  And  it  may  be  questioned  whether  any  event  that 
ever  happened  during  the  whole  anti-slavery  agitation,  ex 
cepting  the  raid  of  John  Brown,  damaged  the  cause  of  slavery 
to  such  an  extent  as  did  the  death  of  Lovejoy.  The  mobbing 
of  Garrison  stirred  Boston,  but  the  world  was  aroused  by 
Wendell  Phillips,  who  took  the  lecture  platform  against 
slavery  on  account  of  the  death  of  Lovejoy.  Whether  it  was 
due  to  the  cause  he  advocated  or  to  his  exceeding  natural 
ability,  it  is  pretty  generally  conceded  that  Wendell  Phillips 
had  no  peer  as  a  platform  lecturer  and  orator,  certainly  none 
in  his  day.  Cultured  Boston  might  affect  to  ignore  Garrison, 
but  Phillips  was  one  of  her  sons,  one  of  her  best,  one  of  her 
most  cultured,  and  when  he  made  his  memorable  reply  to  At 
torney-General  Austin,  on  the  occasion  of  the  Lovejoy  meet 
ing  at  Boston's  historic  hall,  they  discovered  that  he  was  one 
of  their  most  gifted. 

After  the  memorable  fight  over  the  Missouri  Compromise 
in  1820,  slavery  became  and  remained  the  leading  question 
before  the  country, — alive,  active,  omnipresent.  The  abstruse 
disertations  of  essayists  and  scholarly  sermons  of  men  like 
Channing  began  to  give  way  in  northern  pulpits  to  the  glow 
ing  eloquence  of  men  like  Parker,  Cheever  and  Furness ;  the 
comparatively  polite  and  apologetic  arguments  of  men  like 
Lundy,  in  his  "Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation"  were  being 
drowned  by  the  thunders  of  a  Garrison  from  his  tripod  in  the 
office  of  the  "Liberator,"  and  many  who  in  1820  agreed  with 
Representatives  Talmage  and  Taylor,  in  their  advocacy  of 
gradual  emancipation,  found  themselves  in  hearty  accord  with 
Slade  and  Giddings,  in  their  advocacy  of  immediate  emancipa 
tion  in  1837.  It  therefore  happened  that  when  President 
Van  Buren  entered  upon  his  administration  in  1837,  he  not 

[45] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

only  found  the  slave  power  at  its  height  in  the  South,  but  he 
found  New  England  and  large  sections  of  the  North  on  the 
verge  of  inaugurating  a  united  opposition  to  the  system  while 
the  news  from  the  West  was  exceedingly  gloomy  as  to  any 
further  extension  of  the  institution  in  that  section.  Sedate 
discussion  of  the  question  from  the  easy  chair  of  the  school 
man  was  approaching  an  end,  while  the  common  people  were 
entering  the  list  who,  in  language,  if  less  elegant,  still  not  less 
pointed,  referring  to  the  slave-holder  as  "dirty."  In  the 
streets  of  northern  cities  where  southerners  were  once 
fawned  upon  and  flattered,  children  would  now  snicker  at 
them  and  hurl  the  opprobrious  epithet  as  they  scuttled  into 
alleys.  There  was  to  be  no  more  fencing  with  slavery  with 
buttons  on  the  foils.  And  although  Garrison  and  his  school 
continued  to  pin  their  hope  to  moral  suasion,  James  G.  Bir- 
ney,  of  Kentucky,  who  had  liberated  his  slaves  and  joned  Gar 
rison  in  Boston,  had  already  begun  his  appeal  to  the  ballot 
through  the  medium  of  his  "Liberty  Party/'  to  which  there 
was  a  hearty  response.  The  big  politicians,  however,  were 
making  every  effort  to  suppress  the  discussion  to  keep  it 
from  becoming  a  national  issue  upon  which  they  would  have 
to  declare  themselves.  President  Van  Buren,  the  Halifax  of 
his  party  and  of  his  day,  seeing  the  drift  of  affairs,  made  no 
reference  to  slavery  in  his  first  annual  message.  Notwith 
standing  this  omission,  like  Banquo's  ghost,  the  question 
would  not  down.  The  first  constitutions  adopted  by  many  of 
the  states  immediately  after  the  Revolution  were  comprehen 
sive  in  their  democracy  and  quite  liberal  in  their  provisions 
with  reference  to  colored  people.  At  the  behest  of  slave 
holders  nearly  or  quite  all  of  these  constitutions  were  changed 
or  amended  between  1830  and  1840,  so  as  to  provide  a  legal 
status  for  free  Negroes  as  near  to  the  level  of  the  slaves  as 
possible,  and  in  order  to  make  freedom  appear  less  desirable 
still,  the  free  Negro  was  practically  outlawed.  The  frequent 
sight  of  some  poor  colored  person  being  dragged  through  the 
streets  of  northern  cities  by  kidnappers  in  the  employ  of  slave 
holders,  or  the  sight  of  this  sordid  horde  of  thugs,  generally 
regarded  by  the  public  as  being  far  beneath  the  social  level  of 

[46] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  meanest  dog-catchers,  chasing  some  panting  fugitive,  the 
mobbing  of  anti-slavery  speakers,  which  culminated  in  the 
murder  of  Lovejoy,  about  this  time,  served  to  make  Van 
Buren's  silence  on  slavery  count  for  but  little.  For  an  age 
Quakers  had  been  bombarding  Congressmen  with  petitions 
touching  the  question ;  for  a  long  time,  too,  these  petitions 
had  been  denied  a  hearing  in  Congress.  But  state  legislatures 
now  began  to  adopt  resolutions  concerning  slavery  which 
they  demanded  their  Representatives  at  Washington  to  pre 
sent.  And  so  it  happened  that  although  President  Van  Bur- 
en's  message  gave  no  pretext  or  excuse  for  opening  the  dis 
cussion  in  Congress,  Mr.  Slade  had  placed  in  his  hand  a  reso 
lution  adopted  by  the  State  of  Vermont,  which  he  represent 
ed,  demanding  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  which  he  desired  to  have  read  by  the  Clerk  of 
the  House.  Congress  had  already  decreed  that  all  petitions 
touching  the  slavery  question  should  be  neither  read  nor  dis 
cussed  within  its  walls.  This  instrument,  however,  emanated 
from  a  sovereign  state,  whose  accredited  representative  was 
endeavoring  to  carry  out  an  imposed  obligation.  Nevertheless 
the  presentation  of  this  resolution  caused  the  greatest  excite 
ment.  The  members  from  the  South  rose  en  masse  and  above 
the  sound  of  the  uproar,  the  voice  of  Mr.  Wise  was  heard 
calling  to  his  colleagues  from  Virginia  to  leave  the  hall  and 
he  led  them  out.  Mr.  Rhett,  of  South  Carolina,  followed  suit, 
and  while  Mr.  Slade  was  endeavoring  to  read  his  resolution, 
most  of  the  members  from  Virgina,  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia  left  the  chamber.  These  seceding  members  met  in 
a  committee  room  and  resolved:  "That  all  petitions,  etc., 
touching  slavery  be  laid  on  the  table  without  being  read,  re 
ferred  or  any  other  action  taken  on  them,"  and  made  the  adop 
tion  of  this  by  the  House  the  condition  upon  which  they 
would  return  to  their  seats.  The  House  eagerly  adopted  this 
measure  by  a  vote  of  122  to  74,  38  of  the  affirmative  votes 
coming  from  the  Free  states. 

Mr.  Calhoun  now  brought  forward  and  offered  a  series  of 
five  resolutions,  as  follows :  First,  "That  the  states  entered 
this  Union  simply  for  the  purpose  of  securing  its  social  and 

[47] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

political  advantages;  second,  That  each  state  retains  power 
over  its  domestic  institutions;  third,  That  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  is  bound  to  protect  these  institutions;  fourth.  That 
slavery  is  an  institution  of  the  southern  states;  fifth,  That 
intermeddling  with  slavery  is  dangerous."     In  these  resolu 
tions  Mr.  Calhoun  showed  that  he  was  not  only  a  high  priest 
of  the  slavery  cult,  but  that  he  was  the  vicar-general  of  the 
old  school  of  anti-Federalists  and  the  grand  chancellor  of  the 
school  of  State  Rights  for  which  he  came  near  being  hanged 
by    Andrew    Jackson.      Nor    will    any    impartial    historian 
impugn  the  sincerity    of    Mr.    Calhoun    and    his    followers. 
The    spirit    of    these    resolutions    reached   far  beneath    the 
question  of    slavery    and    touched    the    very    foundation    of 
the  difference  between  the  political  system  of  Jefferson  and 
Hamilton,  a  difference  unquestionably  honest  between  two  of 
the   most   illustrious   patriots   the   country   ever   produced,   a 
difference  upon  a  question  lawfully  debatable  among  us  until 
after  the  Civil  War,  which  was  induced  by  it,  and  only  par 
tially  settled  by  the  results  of  that  event,  and  which  our  Con 
gress  and  Supreme  Court  have  since  been  vainly  trying  to 
reconcile— between  the  powers,  authority  and  jurisdiction  of 
the   states  and  the  power,  functions  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
nation.     When  Mr  Calhoun  came  so  near  to  serious  trouble 
during  the  administration  of  President  Jackson,  the  matter 
did  not  concern  slavery  but  the  tariff.     The  Calhoun  resolu 
tions,  therefore,  provoked  a  long  and  searching  debate  before 
the  Senate  adopted  them  by  the  decisive  vote  of  35  to  9.    The 
House  adopted  a  set  of  similar  resolutions  at  the  beginning  of 
its  session  on  December  3,  1838.     But  notwithstanding  such 
resolutions  the  Congressional  opposition  to  slavery  continued 
to  increase  in  spirit  and  bitterness.     Mr.  Giddings  launched 
his  first  lengthy  attack  on  the  floor  of  the  House  on  Febru 
ary  13,  1839,  in  connection  with  a  proposed  appropriation  for 
a  bridge  across  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Potomac  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia.     Young  and  impetuous  and  freshly  com 
missioned  by  his  constituents,  Mr.  Giddings  handled  the  sub 
ject  in  a  manner  that  created  a  sensation  among  his  older 
colleagues  who  had  been  brow-beaten  by  southerners  so  long 

[48] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

that  the  latter  had  become  to  regard  their  arrogant  domina 
tion  as  a  right  and  privilege  on  the  one  hand,  to  which,  on  the 
other,  the  former  assumed  to  regard  it  as  their  duty  meekly 
to  submit.  Giddings'  speech  was  the  topic  of  conversation 
about  the  capitol  for  days,  while  the  speaker  himself  was 
looked  upon  as  an  impudent  monstrosity  by  Congressmen 
from  the  South  and  as  a  very  daring  and,  perhaps,  dangerous 
fellow  by  all  the  rest.  Old  politicians,  who  had  for  years  been 
vassals  of  the  slave  power,  doubting  the  extent  to  which  Gid- 
dings  represented  the  sentiments  of  his  constituents,  strained 
their  ears  for  what  they  thought  was  the  sure  approach  of 
a  storm  of  protest,  but  nothing  was  heard  from  the  West  but 
commendation.  But  worse  still,  the  cloud  and  scowl  caused 
by  his  speech  had  not  passed  from  the  brow  of  southern  Con 
gressmen  nor  had  the  shivers  ceased  to  chase  up  and  down 
the  backbones  of  those  from  the  North  before  Hon.  John 
Jay  and  forty  other  distinguished  citizens  of  New  York  pe 
titioned  Congress,  praying  for  a  general  emancipation  Act 
to  take  effect  July  4,  1842.  This  petition  was  placed  in  the 
hands  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  on  February  25,  1839, 
asked  that  the  rules  might  be  suspended  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  him  to  lay  the  matter  before  the  House.  Of  course 
the  request  was  denied  without  hesitation  and  with  scorn6 
and  so  the  matter  died  in  the  hands  of  the  venerable  states 
man. 

In  the  Twenty-sixth  Congress,  which  met  in  1839,  there 
were  four  open  and  avowed  opponents  of  slavery,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachusetts ;  William  Slade,  of  Ver 
mont ;  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  of  Ohio,  and  Seth  M.  Gates,  of 
New  York.  Besides  these  members,  among  other  things  to 
enliven  this  session  was  the  Texas  question.  One  of  the  un 
fortunate  things  about  slavery  was  the  fact  that  it  could 
never  get  enough  room,  a  situation  that  constant  attempts 
were  made  to  remedy,  but  which  was  as  impossible  as  it 
would  be  for  an  individual  to  acquire  all  the  land  adjoining 
his  own.  The  smoke  of  our  battles  with  the  Indians  in  the 
second  Seminole  War  had  not  ceased  to  drape  the  horizon, 


6.  Giddings,  p.   132. 

[49] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

nor  had  the  eyes  of  the  Cherokees  been  dried  of  the  tears  for 
their  ancestral  wigwams  in  Georgia  and  the  hunting  ground 
from  which  they  had  been  expelled,  before  we  had  begun  to 
conspire  and  intrigue  against  Mexico  for  the  acquisition  of 
Texas.  For  years  the  plot  had  been  thickening;  for  years  we 
had  been  throwing  into  the  witches'  cauldron  of  conspiracy 
and  mendacity  every  ingredient  calculated  to  make  it  boil 
and  bubble  until  there  was  an  ostensible  revolt  against 
Mexico  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  occupying  the  Texas 
territory.  Our  part  was  to  encourage  the  Texans  to  pretend 
to  establish  an  independent  government  and  to  hoist  its  flag 
with  a  lone  star  in  1836.  After  a  short  interval  of  this  mimic 
show  and  stage  play,  these  revolutionists,  led  by  the  hirelings 
of  the  United  States  which,  at  the  time,  was  but  another 
name  for  the  slave  power,  applied  for  annexation  to  our 
Union.  Now  while  we  naturally  wanted  Texas,  we  naturally 
did  not  want  war,  but  we  just  had  to  have  Texas.  The  Mexi 
cans  and  everybody  else  knew  that  we  were  behind  the 
scheme,  and  since  there  was  little  hope  of  deceiving  anybody, 
after  the  so-called  secession  of  Texas  from  Mexico,  we  imme 
diately  began  a  campaign  to  educate  our  people  to  the  point 
of  seeing  the  necessity  of  incorporating  Texas  into  the  Union. 
Accordingly  the  Texas  question  was  kept  before  Congress  on 
one  pretext  or  another  in  order  that  Congress  might  be  used 
as  the  central  propaganda.  If  nothing  else  should  be  avail 
able,  some  one  would  bring  forward  a  claim  for  a  slave  who 
was  alleged  to  have  escaped,  when  a  lengthy,  if  not  learned, 
speech  would  be  made  on  the  ways  and  means  of  preventing 
such  catastrophies,  especially  in  states  adjoining  Mexico. 
There  were  many  sharp  debates  in  connection  with  such  mat 
ters,  which  at  times  went  from  the  sublime  to  the  ridiculous. 
There  was,  for  instance,  a  bill  before  the  House  for  the  reim 
bursement  of  certain  southern  citizens  on  account  of  money 
alleged  to  have  been  spent  by  them  for  bloodhounds  imported 
from  Cuba,  along  with  their  Spanish  trainers,  and  used  in  the 
Seminole  War.  These  hounds,  it  was  claimed,  were  brought 
from  Cuba  for  the  purpose  of  running  down  Negroes  and  In 
dians  engaged  in  the  war  who  made  their  headquarters  in  the 

[50] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Florida  swamps.  The  experience  of  the  Georgia  expedition 
and  of  Major  Dade  had  taught  our  soldier  slave  hunters 
something  of  the  danger  of  entering  these  swamps,  and  so  a 
resort  was  had  to  bloodhounds.  When  this  particular  claim 
was  under  consideration  and  payment  was  about  to  be  voted, 
Mr.  Adams,  knowing  that  he  would  not  be  allowed  to  speak, 
and  that  at  all  events  his  objections  would  be  futile,  offered 
a  facetious  resolution,  gravely  inquiring  into  the  pedigree  of 
this  new  class  of  soldiers,  the  terms  of  their  enlistment  and 
whether  or  not  their  "widows"  were  to  have  the  benefit  of 
our  pension  laws.7  Of  course  Mr.  Adams'  resolution  was  not 
considered  any  more  than  a  serious  objection  on  his  part 
would  have  been. 

At  this  particular  time,  however,  unusual  efforts  were  made 
to  shut  off  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  as  much  as 
possible  on  account  of  the  embarrassing  effect  upon  presiden 
tial  candidates  about  to  be  nominated.  The  tariff  question 
was,  therefore,  given  the  greatest  prominence,  though  it  was 
well  known  that  the  Texas  situation  would  have  to  be  dealt 
with  by  the  incoming  administration.  The  Whigs  nominated 
William  Henry  Harrison,  a  man  possessed  of  the  most  choice 
prerequisites  for  the  presidency  in  the  eyes  of  the  politicians 
of  his  day ;  he  had  a  good  war  record  and  a  better  pro-slavery 
record.  From  1802  to  1807  he  had  made  a  most  gallant  fight 
for  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  Indiana,8  which  effort  had 
failed  through  no  fault  of  his  but  simply  because  the  people 
would  not  have  slavery.  The  forces  favorable  to  slavery  and 
those  against  it  had  a  most  conclusive  test  of  their  respective 
powers  during  the  contest  for  the  election  of  a  delegate  to 
represent  the  territory  in  Congress.  A  native  Virginian,  one 
Mr.  Randolph,  at  that  time  the  Attorney-General  of  the  ter 
ritory,  was  the  pro-slavery  candidate  for  delegate,  and  had 
the  most  energetic  support  of  Harrison,  then  Governor,  who 
took  the  stump  and  told  the  people  that  if  Randolph  were 
elected  the  Ordinance  of  1787  would  be  repealed  and  slavery 
permitted  in  that  section.  Opposed  to  Randolph  was  a  young 


7.  Congressional    Globe,    Mar.    9,    1840. 

8.  Amer.  Conflict,  Vol.  I,  p.  52;  Annals,  March  2,  1803,  ibid.  November  13,  1807. 


[51] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

man  from  Pennsylvania,  Jonathan  Jennings  by  name,  and 
described  as  "an  inexperienced  youth;"  still  Jennings  beat 
Randolph  on  this  clear-cut  issue  by  a  vote  of  3  to  I.9 

Having  made  such  a  record,  General  Harrison  was  excep 
tionally  strong  as  a  candidate  for  the  presidency,  and,  after 
a  hard  cider  campaign,  and  one  in  which  other  such  material 
made  strong  arguments,  he  was  duly  elected.  President  Har 
rison  died  within  a  month  after  his  inauguration  and  what 
course  he  would  have  taken,  had  he  lived,  on  the  question  of 
admitting  Texas,  is  not  known.  It  was  generally  under 
stood  at  the  time,  however,  that  the  Whig  party  was  opposed 
to  it. 

In  the  meantime,  Adams  and  Giddings  availed  themselves 
of  every  opportunity  to  prod  the  adherents  of  slavery  on  the 
floor  of  the  House.  Giddings  boldly  introduced  a  set  of  radi 
cal  anti-slavery  resolutions,  for  which  he  was  censured  by 
that  body  in  March,  1842.  He  immediately  resigned  and  re 
turned  home,  only  to  be  sent  back  within  five  weeks  by  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  people  of  his  district.  Mr. 
Adams,  also,  was  hauled  up,  but  he  managed  to  get  the  privi 
lege  of  making  a  defense,  a  privilege  denied  to  Giddings ;  and 
when  he  was  asked  how  long  it  would  take  him  to  prepare 
and  make  his  defense,  quietly,  replied  that  "it  took  Burke  six 
months  to  prepare  and  deliver  his  speech  in  connection  with 
the  trial  of  Warren  Hastings,  but  that  he  thought  he  might 
be  able  to  get  through  with  his  in  "ninety  days."  The  resolu 
tion  of  censure  was  laid  on  the  table,  for  it  was  believed  that 
if  "Old  Adams,"  as  some  who  disliked  him  called  him,  instead 
of  "Old  Man  Eloquent,"  as  he  was  called  by  his  admirers, 
were  given  three  months  to  speak,  the  whole  world  of  slavery 
would  be  shaken  to  its  center;  besides,  damaging  criticism 
would  follow  the  expenditure  of  money  and  the  suspension  of 
public  business  for  such  a  purpose  for  so  long  a  time.  None 
of  these  things  seemed  to  move  Mr.  Adams,  however,  nor  to 
balk  him  in  his  purpose  to  annoy  his  opponents.  The  House 
was  called  upon  to  consider  a  bill  for  an  amendment  to  the 
charter  of  Alexandria,  Va.,  extending  the  suffrage  to  all  "free 


9.  Congressional    Globe,    First    Session,    Twenty-ninth    Congress,    p.    180. 

[52] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

white  citizens."  Mr.  Adams  promptly  moved  to  strike  out  the 
word  "white"  and  his  insistence  upon  the  consideration  of  his 
motion  caused  the  whole  thing  to  be  laid  upon  the  table 
rather  than  have  any  discussion. 

The  sentiment  against  slavery  was  now  noticeably  on  the 
increase  and  was  daily  assuming  a  more  defiant  tone.  In  1844 
Mr.  Adams  presented  a  petition  from  citizens  of  New  York 
praying  Congress  to  pass  some  law  relieving  the  people  of  the 
Free  states  from  contributing  to  the  support  of  slavery.  The 
petition  was  not  only  read  but  debated,  a  thing  that  had  not 
occurred  in  connection  witji  such  matters  for  a  long  time* 
This  petition  was  even  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee 
by  a  vote  of  97  to  80.  A  similar  request,  emanating  from  the 
Legislature  of  Massachusetts  reached  Congress  about  the 
same  time,  and  Mr.  Adams  had  it  referred  to  a  special  com 
mittee,  of  which  he  was  made  chairman.  The  report  of  this 
special  committee,  after  reviewing  the  subject  under  con 
sideration  at  some  length,  called  attention  to  the  aggressions 
of  slavery  and  its  imposition  upon  the  Free  states  and  closed 
by  declaring  that  "the  Declaration  of  Independence  consti 
tuted  a  pledge  in  the  name  of  God  solemnly  given  by  each 
state,  to  abolish  slavery  as  soon  as  practicable  and  to  substi 
tute  freedom  in  its  place."  The  report  was  laid  on  the  table. 

The  tide  had  turned  against  slavery.  The  system  received 
a  mortal  blow  when  England  abolished  it  in  the  West  Indies. 
The  civilized  world  was  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  act.  With 
freedom  in  Canada  and  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  United 
States  and  freedom  in  the  islands  on  the  south,  the  fate  of 
slavery  in  the  United  States  was  sealed.  It  had  to  die. 


[53] 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Twenty-eighth  Congress — The  Twenty-ninth  Congress  (1845) — 
The  Constitution  of  Florida — The  Mexican  War — The  Wilmot 
Proviso— The  Thirtieth  Congress  (1847)— Hale,  the  First  Anti- 
Slavery  Senator — Palfrey  Enters  House — The  Death  of  John 
Quincy  Adams. 

The  treaty  of  Ghent  signed  December  14,  1814,  and  pro 
claimed  by  President  Madison  February  17,  1815,  under  which 
peace  was  concluded  with  Great  Britain  after  the  War 
of  1812,  among  other  things  pledged  the  parties  to  mutual  co 
operation  in  any  and  all  steps  necessary  for  the  suppression 
of  the  African  slave  trade.  It  appears  that  England  attempted 
in  good  faith  to  carry  out  this  provision  but  that  the  United 
States  was  still  inclined  to  connive  at  man  stealing  on  the 
part  of  Americans  who  pretended  to  be  engaged  in  legitimate 
trade  along  the  African  coast.  Under  England's  interpreta 
tion  of  the  treaty,  any  vessel  suspected  of  being  engaged  in 
the  slave  trade  might  be  held  up  and  searched.  It  therefore 
happened  that  several  American  vessels  were  searched  and 
caught  with  the  goods,  as  they  say.  Notwithstanding  our 
treaties  and  conventions  touching  this  question  and  their 
well-known  violation  on  the  part  of  our  citizens,  the  Senate 
adopted  a  resolution  December  27,  1842,  demanding  to  be  ad 
vised  by  the  President  as  to  what  course  this  government 
might  take  in  relation  to  the  violations  of  these  conventions ; 
also  what  danger  there  was  that  the  laws  and  obligations  of 
the  United  States  in  relation  to  the  suppression  of  the  slave 
trade  might  be  executed  by  others.  This  was  evidently  in 
tended  as  a  slap  at  President  Tyler  for  having  dared  to  call 
attention  in  his  annual  message  just  transmitted  to  Congress, 
to  the  necessity  of  our  performing  our  part  of  the  contract 
under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  in  connection  with  the  suppression 
of  the  African  slave  trade,  otherwise  we  might  find  ourselves 
in  the  position  of  seeing  others  perform  for  us  under  circum 
stances  that  would  be  more  or  less  humiliating.  President 
Tyler  responded  to  this  demand  in  a  tone  so  sharp  that  the 

[54] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

instigators  of  the  resolution  were  glad  to  let  the  matter  drop. 
The  President  plainly  told  the  Senate  in  his  communication,  a 
thing  that  they  well  knew,  to  wit,  that  the  African  slave 
trader  had  been  declared  a  pirate  and  as  such  had  no  right  to 
claim  the  protection  of  the  government.  When  this  provision 
was  originally  incorporated  in  the  treaty  referred  to,  objec 
tion  was  raised  to  it  and  the  question  was  debated  by  the 
United  States  with  England  for  ten  years  before  the  conven 
tion  was  concluded  and  signed  at  London  March  13,  1824,  by 
the  plenipotentiaries  of  both  governments,1  but  we  were  in 
no  hurry  to  ratify  these  arrangements,  and  while  haggling 
over  the  boundary  question,  the  slave  traders  still  hoped  to 
evade  the  provisions  applicable  to  them  though  they  had  been 
already  definitely  settled.  Indeed,  although  we  had  gone  so 
far  as  to  declare  these  traders  pirates  by  an  Act  of  Congress, 
and  all  the  Powers  of  Europe  had  combined  to  aid  in  their 
suppression,  this  species  of  criminal  long  survived  to  harass 
us  in  our  foreign  relations  even  after  we  had  furnished  our 
quota  of  the  international  fleet  to  patrol  the  African  coast  as 
appears  from  President  Tyler's  final  message  in  1844.  The 
nefarious  trade  went  on  until  England  formed  something  like 
a  habit  of  seizing  and  condemning  these  pirate  ships,  which 
generally  turned  out  to  be  American.  The  year  1845  opened 
with  war  clouds  hanging  dark  and  damp  over  the  country. 
After  maintaining  a  so-called  independence  for  more  than 
eight  years,  backed  by  the  moral  if  not  the  material  support 
of  the  United  States,  Texas  had  at  last  been  received  into  the 
Union,  and  all  knew  that  this  would  mean  war  with  Mexico, 
President  Tyler  having  exerted  himself  to  the  utmost  for  the 
consummation  of  the  scheme.  This  made  another  large  slave 
state  which  it  was  hoped  might  eventually  be  cut  up  into  sev 
eral  slave  states.  Then,  too,  about  this  time,  Florida,  follow 
ing  the  example  of  Arkansas,  adopted  a  constitution  under 
which  her  citizens  were  prohibited  from  emancipating  their 
slaves,  made  application  and  was  received  into  the  Union  in 
1845. 

Texas  had  been  admitted  during  the  second  session  of  the 


1.  Eighth   Annual   Message   President   Monroe,   December  7,1824. 

[55] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

Twenty-eighth  Congress,  and  while  President  Tyler  was 
zealous  for  the  consummation  of  the  scheme,  nearly  the 
whole  of  the  northern  wing  of  his  party  (Whig)  was  against 
it.  And  in  this  connection  there  is  said  to  have  been  a  bar 
gain  struck  between  the  northern  Democrats  and  the  south 
ern  contingent  of  that  party  under  which  the  former  agreed 
to  vote  for  the  admission  of  Texas  in  consideration  of  the 
latter  agreeing  to  vote  for  the  exclusion  of  slavery  in  the  or 
ganization  of  the  Territory  of  Oregon.2  Oregon  had  been 
jointly  occupied  up  to  this  period  by  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  but  the  boundary  question  had  been  about  settled 
and  the  territory  was  now  in  position  to  be  regularly  or 
ganized.  Whether  there  was  any  bargain  of  the  sort  referred 
to  or  not,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Oregon  bill,  the  12th 
section  of  which  forever  excluded  slavery,  was  passed  by  the 
House  without  a  single  word  in  opposition,  by  a  vote  of  131 
to  69,  on  January  11,  1847.  The  Senate,  however,  did  not  take 
up  the  Oregon  bill  with  anything  like  enthusiasm ;  indeed,  this 
body  pigeon-holed  the  measure  and  compelled  the  territory 
to  wait  until  after  Texas  was  secured.  These  events  natur 
ally  aroused  and  sustained  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  and 
tended  to  solidify  it  throughout  the  country;  nor  did  anti- 
slavery  men  in  Congress  neglect  to  fan  the  blaze.  At  the  be 
ginning  of  the  Twenty-ninth  Congress  (December  1,  1845) 
Erastus  D.  Culver,  a  Representative  from  New  York,  pre 
sented  a  petition  numerously  signed  by  members  of  all  politi 
cal  parties  of  that  state,  praying  Congress  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  so-called  "gag 
rule"  under  which  such  matters  were  laid  on  the  table  with 
out  debate  had  been  rescinded,  still  the  influence  of  that  rule 
had  not  been  sufficiently  relaxed  as  to  permit  of  a  different 
course  being  pursued  in  the  case  of  this  petition,  which  was 
accordingly  laid  on  the  table  without  debate.  But  the  news 
of  such  a  petition  could  not  help  but  be  spread  abroad  through 
the  country. 

The  preparation  for  the  Mexican  war,  which  was  now  upon 
us,  tended  to  obscure  the  slavery  question  to  some  extent  dur- 


2,  Giddings,  p.  248. 

[56] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ing  the  next  two  years,  and  aside  from  the  usual  batch  of  pe 
titions  intended  to  affect  the  situation,  particularly  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia,  little  or  nothing  was  done.  The  great  major 
ity  of  the  American  people,  however,  never  heartily  approved 
of  our  war  with  Mexico,  and  consequently  hostilities  did  not 
proceed  very  far  before  strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  bring 
the  conflict  to  an  end.  Of  course  our  diplomatic  efforts  in 
this  direction  never  contemplated  the  giving  up  of  Texas,  the 
acquisition  of  which  having  been  the  very  object  for  which  the 
war  was  begun.  The  fact  that  we  demonstrated  our  inten 
tion  and  power  of  taking  the  territory,  however,  made  it  easy 
for  us  to  offer  Mexico  a  financial  consideration  notwithstand 
ing  the  fact  that  the  war  had  cost  us  some  three  hundred  mil 
lion  dollars  and  about  eighty  thousand  lives.3  Tentative  terms 
having  been  arranged,  Congress  took  under  consideration  a 
bill  providing  for  the  appropriation  of  three  million  dollars 
to  be  applied  on  account  of  this  settlement.  There  was  no 
objection  to  this  appropriation  as  we  were  particularly  anxious 
to  get  out  of  the  muddle.  When  the  measure  came  to  a  vote 
in  the  House,  however,  Mr.  Ashman,  of  Massachusetts,  of 
fered  a  proposition  to  the  effect  that  slavery  should  be  for 
ever  excluded  from  any  territory  that  we  might  acquire  from 
Mexico  through  the  exigencies  of  this  wrar. 

The  Speaker  ruled  this  amendment  out  of  order.  But  the 
fact  that  the  country  knew  what  had  caused  the  war  with 
Mexico  and  was  generally  criticizing  the  national  govern 
ment  for  its  course  in  the  matter,  inclined  Congress  to  desire 
to  settle  this  controversy  as  quickly  and  as  quietly  as  pos 
sible,  so  the  holding  up  of  this  appropriation  by  the  anti- 
slavery  forces  was  embarrassing.  A  few  days  after  Mr.  Ash 
man's  amendment  was  ruled  out,  David  Wilmot,  a  Represen 
tative  from  Pennsylvania,  brought  forward  his  famous  pro 
viso  which  aimed  at  the  same  result  as  that  contemplated  by 
Mr.  Ashman.  This  passed  the  House  February  15,  1847,  by 
a  vote  of  115  to  106.  The  debate  on  the  measure  was  short 
but  sharp.  Under  this  provision  slavery  had  to  share  the 
fruits  of  the  Mexican  war  with  freedom;  it  had  to  make  it- 


3.  Giddings,   p.  253. 

[57] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

self  contented  with  Texas  while  the  rest  of  this  territorial 
acquisition  was  dedicated  to  freedom. 

The  first  session  of  the  Thirtieth  Congress,  which  opened 
in  December,  1847,  was  considerably  changed  in  its  personnel. 
The  Senate  now  for  the  first  time  had  a  member  who  was 
not  only  an  avowed  opponent  of  slavery  extension,  but  one 
who  had  been  a  storm  center  in  a  contest  based  squarely 
upon  that  issue  in  his  state.  This  was  Hon.  John  P.  Hale,  of 
New  Hampshire.  The  little  company  of  out-and-out  anti- 
slavery  men  in  the  House,  too,  had  a  valuable  accession  in 
the  person  of  Mr.  John  G.  Palfrey,  of  Massachusetts.  Mr. 
Palfrey  made  his  first  important  speech  on  the  slavery  ques 
tion  early  in  January,  1848,  in  connection  with  President 
Polk's  message  concerning  Mexico.  His  reputation  for  learn 
ing  caused  his  utterances  to  be  listened  to  with  great  atten 
tion  and  respect,  and  this  speech  on  Mr.  Folk's  message  rela 
tive  to  the  Mexican  war,  which  could  hardly  be  treated  with 
out  involving  slavery,  so  pleased  the  venerable  Mr.  Adams 
that  he  exclaimed  from  his  seat :  "Thank  God.  The  seal  is 
broken,  Massachusetts  speaks."4 

New  Hampshire,  which  had  hitherto  been  perhaps  the  most 
pro-slavery  of  all  the  eastern  states,  was  now,  since  the  Hale 
campaign,  about  in  the  lead  against  any  extension  of  the  sys 
tem.  On  December  30,  1847,  Mr.  Amos  Tuck,  a  Representa 
tive  from  that  state,  presented  a  petition  from  Joseph  Lindsay 
and  seventy  other  prominent  persons  of  Philadelphia,  Pa., 
praying  Congress  to  dispose  of  the  public  lands  and  use  the 
proceeds  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  Although  the  petition, 
like  all  others  of  the  kind,  was  laid  on  the  table,  the  vote  in 
this  case  being  86  to  70,  the  matter  attracted  unusual  atten 
tion  because  of  the  prominence  of  the  petitioners  and  the  ap 
parent  definiteness  of  their  purpose.  The  outside  pressure 
upon  Congress  was  increasing  daily  and  this  pressure  was 
constantly  stimulated  by  frequent  happenings  in  Washington 
under  the  noses  of  Congressmen.  For  instance,  there  was  a 
colored  man  employed  in  the  house  at  which  Mr.  Giddings 
and  a  number  of  other  Congressmen  boarded.  The  owner  of 


4.  Giddings,  p.   266. 

[58] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

this  man  had  agreed  to  allow  him  to  purchase  his  freedom 
and  most  of  the  money  had  been  paid  on  account,  but  just 
before  the  final  payment  was  to  have  been  made,  the  poor 
wretch  was  seized  and  sold  into  perpetual  slavery  by  his 
treacherous  owner.  Mr.  Giddings,  among  others,  saw  this 
faithful  servant  bound  with  ropes  and  carried  off  by  a  heart 
less  slave  trader.  When  this  poor  fellow's  wife  learned  what 
had  happened  she  slew  her  little  girl  and  herself.  A  few  days 
later  Mr.  Giddings  saw  a  colored  girl  of  nineteen  years,  who 
had  been  given  permission  to  visit  her  mother,  who  lived 
across  the  eastern  branch  'of  the  Potomac,  and  was  on  her 
way  there.  She  discovered  that  she  was  being  pursued  by 
slave  catchers  or  patrolmen,  and  bounded  over  the  rail  of  the 
bridge  to  death  in  the  river.  Mr.  Giddings  was  deeply  moved 
by  these  experiences,  and  on  January  17,  1848,  introduced  in 
the  House  a  resolution  of  the  following  tenor :  "That  a  com 
mittee  be  appointed  to  report  some  measure  repealing  all 
laws,  ordinances,  regulations  of  all  kinds  whatever  under  and 
by  virtue  of  which  persons  may  be  bought  or  sold  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia."  At  the  same  time  he  offered  another  reso 
lution  with  preamble  setting  forth  what  he  had  witnessed 
as  above  mentioned  in  which  he  peremptorily  demanded  that 
Congress  should  either  stop  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  or  remove  the  capitol  to  some  free  state.  A  mo 
tion  was  made,  as  usual,  to  lay  these  resolutions  on  the  table 
and  on  the  first  vote  the  motion  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  85  ayes 
to  86  nays.  Another  vote  was  forthwith  secured  and  in  this 
the  slave  party  triumphed  by  a  vote  of  94  to  88,  but  the  nar 
row  escape  experienced  by  the  slave  party  on  this  occasion 
created  a  sensation.5  Determined  to  force  the  issue,  Mr.  Gid 
dings,  on  January  31,  introduced  a  set  of  similar  resolutions 
and  these  were  followed  by  resolutions  introduced  by  Mr. 
Tuck  on  May  20,  designed  to  accomplish  the  same  purpose. 
Although  these  resolutions  were  laid  on  the  table,  they  served 
to  annoy  and  to  sting  the  slave  party.  In  the  meantime  Con 
gress  was  being  flooded  with  petitions  and  resolutions  eman- 


5.  "There  was  great  confusion  and  much  excitement   in  the  House,"   said  the 
Reporter. 


[59] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

ating  from  state  legislatures  and  benevolent  organizations 
bearing  on  the  question.  The  slave  power  had  not  experi 
enced  such  bold  defiance  for  more  than  a  generation  and  these 
radical  resolutions  following  a  phillipic  against  the  system  de 
livered  by  Mr.  Palfrey,  on  January  26,  1848,  in  which  he  re 
ferred  to  our  first  fugitive  slave  law  as  "the  heinous  crime  of 
'93"  were  very  distressing.  Mr.  Palfrey's  opposition  to  slavery 
was  especially  hurtful  to  the  slave  party  because  all  felt  that 
his  actions  were  founded  on  deep  convictions  rather  than 
mere  policy.  His  father  had  resided  in  the  South  a  great  por 
tion  of  his  lifetime  and  held  slaves ;  these  the  young  Mr.  Pal 
frey  promptly  liberated  when  they  fell  to  him  on  the  death  of 
his  father,  and  returned  to  Massachusetts.  Thus  Massachu 
setts  continued  to  be  as  conspicuous  in  the  anti-slavery  cause 
within  Congress  as  on  the  outside.  "The  Old  Man  Eloquent" 
(John  Quincy  Adams)  who  had  more  than  glorified  the  name 
of  his  state  in  this  struggle,  especially  in  his  championing  of 
the  right  of  petition  when  it  was  smitten  from  the  hands  of 
the  citizens,  was  now  dead,  having  passed  away  February  23, 
1848.  Mr.  Palfrey  by  this  time  had  been  in  the  House  just 
about  long  enough  to  justify  his  reputation  for  learning  and 
so,  in  a  manner,  he  filled  the  place  of  Mr.  Adams  until  the 
coming  of  Sumner,  "the  noblest  Roman  of  them  all." 


[60] 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  Formation  of  the  Free  Soil  Party— The  Beginning  of  the  End 
of  the  Whig  Party— Presidential  Candidates  of  '48— Section- 
alization  of  Political  Parties — Election  of  Taylor. 

The  year  1848  was  a  presidential  year,  and  as  might  have 
been  expected  from  the  character  of  the  men  constituting  the 
Massachusetts  delegation  in  Congress,  and  the  fact  that  the 
question  of  slavery  or  no  slavery  had  been  made  the  main 
issue  in  the  state  campaign  that  resulted  in  the  election  of 
the  legislature  which  sent  Hale  to  the  Senate  from  New 
Hampshire,  signs  of  the  intention  to  make  the  slavery  ques 
tion  a  national  issue  in  politics  soon  became  manifest.  The 
country  has  never  lacked  for  men  willing  to  serve  it  as 
President  whatever  the  issue  or  platform  upon  which  candi 
dates  are  required  to  stand.  And  so,  besides  the  regular 
Democratic  and  Whig  parties,  the  anti-slavery  men  consti 
tuted  themselves  into  a  party  after  swallowing  up  Birney's 
Liberty  party,  and  came  out  under  the  name  and  style  of 
Free  Soil  party.  The  consummation  of  the  Texas  troubles, 
which  resulted  in  the  Mexican  war,  had  so  aroused  the  indig 
nation  of  many  northern  Democrats  and  Whigs  that  they 
joined  this  new  movement  in  great  numbers  largely  as  a  re 
buke  to  their  leaders  who  had  allowed  themselves  to  become 
mere  tools  in  the  hands  of  the  southern  wing  of  their  re 
spective  parties  in  support  of  an  institution  which  the  non- 
slave-holding  states  had  long  since  learned  "to  oppose  in 
politics,  repudiate  in  economics  and  to  loathe  in  morals."  As 
long  as  this  opposition  in  politics,  etc.,  etc.,  was  based  on 
mere  sentiment,  it  did  not  manifest  any  particular  strength 
among  voters  outside  of  lecture  halls,  but  when  men  began 
to  reflect  that  the  Mexican  war  was  not  the  only  one  that 
slavery  had  brought  upon  the  country,  it  being  well  known 
that  the  Indian  wars  traced  their  origin  to  the  same  source, 
they  began  to  ask  themselves  when  and  where  taxation  and 
the  slaughter  of  men  on  account  of  slavery  would  end. 

[61] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Not  a  few  of  the  old  leaders  found  themselves  in  a  dilemma, 
Webster,  in  a  burst  of  pathetic  eloquence,  after  delivering 
himself  of  an  inimitable  eulogy  of  his  party,  dramatically 
asked  of  his  listening  constituents :  "If  you  put  me  out  of  the 
Whig  Party  where  will  I  go?"  Mr.  Webster's  question  was 
not  so  hard  to  answer  by  men  who  put  principle  above  policy 
and  who  never  hoped  or  even  desired  to  be  President.  It  was 
doubtless  hard  for  one  like  Mr.  Webster  to  appreciate  the 
force  of  the  silent  revolution  in  progress  in  the  United  States 
between  1820  and  1850.  The  constant  sound  of  his  own  praise 
rendered  him  less  capable  of  catching  the  ominous  notes  of 
warning.  The  time  had  come,  however,  when  new  leaders 
were  demanded  to  meet  the  new  condition. 

A  second  or  honor  term  as  President  has  always  been 
greatly  desired  by  those  who  have  once  served.  Mr.  Van 
Buren  cherished  the  hope  of  being  given  a  second  term,  but 
as  he  had  displeased  the  South  by  certain  utterances  besides 
having  committed  himself1  to  an  anti-Texas  policy  during  his 
administration,  his  party  refused  him  a  second  nomination. 
Mr.  Van  Buren  was  more  out  of  relation  with  his  party  than 
ever  in  1848.  The  Democrats  of  his  state  (New  York)  were 
completely  factionized;  there  were  the  anti-Texas  men,  or 
"Barn-burners"  (so  called  because  it  was  claimed  that  the 
South  would  secede  unless  Texas  should  be  admitted,  and 
those  who  opposed  it  were  likened  to  the  farmer  that  burns 
down  his  barn  to  get  rid  of  the  rats)  ;  there  were  Van  Buren 
men  and  "Hunkers"  or  "northern  men  with  southern  prin 
ciples  ;"  and  there  were  "Soft  Hunkers"  or  those  who  were 
less  violently  pro-slavery.2 

And  when  the  Democratic  Convention  of  1848  met  at  Bal 
timore  there  were  two  sets  of  delegates  from  New  York :  the 
"Barn-burners,"  led  by  Samuel  Young,  and  the  "Hunkers," 
led  by  Daniel  Dickinson.  The  convention  voted  to  seat  all  of 
these  delegates,  but  this  failed  to  bring  harmony  and  a  split, 
led  by  the  Massachusetts  Free  Soilers,  who  were  subsequently 


1.  Morse's  Van   Buren,  pp.  347-65,  Amer.  Conflict,  Vol.  I,  p.   152. 

2.  During   and   just   after   the   war,   the   term    "Copper   Heads"    was    applied   to 
"northern   men    with    southern   principles,"   among   whom   C.    L.   Vallandingham, 
of  Ohio,  and   Fernando.  Wood,   of  New   York,   were   conspicuous. 

[62] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

joined  by  malcontented  fragments  now  rapidly  crumbling  off 
from  both  of  the  old  parties,  called  a  convention  that  met  at 
Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  on  August  7,  when  and  where  Martin  Van 
Buren  and  Charles  Francis  Adams  were  nominated  for  Presi 
dent  and  Vice-President  respectively.  The  platform  on  which 
these  candidates  invited  the  suffrage  of  the  voters  was  both 
explicit  and  concise.3  It  declared  a  belief  not  only  in  slavery 
restriction  but  in  slavery  extinction.  One  of  their  significant 
resolves  was  as  follows :  "That  the  proviso  of  Jefferson  pro 
hibiting  the  extension  of  slavery  after  1800  in  any  and  all  ter 
ritories  of  the  United  States,  northern  and  southern ;  the 
votes  of  six  states  and  sixteen  delegates  in  the  Congress  of 
1784  for  the  proviso  to  three  states  and  seven  delegates 
against  it  *  *  *  and  the  entire  history  of  that  period 
shows  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the  nation  not  to  extend,  na 
tionalize  or  encourage  slavery,  but  to  limit,  localize  and  dis 
courage  it ;  and  to  this  policy  which  should  have  never  been 
departed  from,  the  government  ought  to  return/'  These  reso 
lutions  were  reported  by  Gen.  B.  F.  Butler,  and  concluded  as 
follows :  "We  will  inscribe  on  our  banners,  Free  Soil,  Free 
Speech,  Free  Labor  and  Freemen,  and  under  it  we  will  fight 
on  and  ever."4 

While  Mr.  Van  Buren  did  not  receive  any  votes  in  the 
electoral  college,  his  popular  vote  was  291,342.5  He  ran  par 
ticularly  well  in  Massachusetts,  and  it  is  said  that  the  size  of 
his  vote  in  that  state  was  largely  due  to  the  activity  and  in 
fluence  of  Charles  Sumner.6  This  was  the  old  Birney  party 
which  was  organized  just  before  the  campaign  of  1840,  when 
it  stood  for  the  immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation  of 
the  slaves  and  differed  from  Garrison's  movement  only  in 
method.  By  1848  this  party  had  received  large  accessions 
from  the  ranks  of  both  Whigs  and  Democrats  in  the  North 
and  had  had  injected  into  it  substantial  modifications;  even 
the  name  had  been  changed  from  Liberty  party  to  Free  Soil 
party  and  its  position  on  the  slavery  question  had  changed 


3.  Stanwood's    Pol.    Conventions,    1848. 

4.  Stanwood;   also   Morse's   Van   Buren,  365. 

5.  Morse,   p.   368. 

6.  Morse,   p.   369. 


[63] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

from  the  advocacy  of  slavery  extinction  to  the  advocacy  of 
slavery  restriction.  The  bold  resolution  passed  by  the  Buffalo 
Convention  touching  slavery  as  above  related,  was  doubtless 
adopted  to  please  the  old  Birney  men  who  were  known  to 
have  been  some  sixty-eight  thousand  strong  in  1844,  and 
were  considered  to  be  stronger  still  in  1848,  as  the  annexation 
of  Texas  and  the  Mexican  War  had  almost  completely  sec- 
tionalized  the  old  political  parties.  The  southern  Democrats 
and  Whigs  coalesced  for  the  protection  of  slavery,  or  rather 
the  southern  Democrats,  who  had  always  sustained  the  slave 
power,  absorbed  the  southern  Whigs,  while  the  opponents  of 
slavery  in  the  North,  East  and  West  were  beginning  the 
coalescence  that  culminated  in  the  formation  of  the  Repub 
lican  party  of  '56.  The  opponents  of  slavery,  however,  were 
far  from  being  united  in  1848.  Among  them  there  were  Free 
Soilers,  "Know  Nothings,"  and  those  who  still  called  them 
selves  Whigs.  It  took  the  Kansas-Nebraska  troubles  and  the 
Omnibus  Bill  of  1850  to  bring  these  discordant  elements 
together.  Matters  stood  thus  when  Taylor  was  elected  in 
1848. 


|64| 


CHAPTER  VII 

Thirtieth  Congress,  Second  Session — The  Gott  Resolution  for  Aboli 
tion  of  Slavery  in  District  of  Columbia — Slavery  Excluded 
from  California  and  New  Mexico — South  Carolina  Hints  at 
Secession  and  Civil  War — Thirty-first  Congress — Fugitive  Slave 
Act— Protest  of  South. 

Mr.  Van  Buren,  on  his  platform  advocating  the  restriction 
of  slavery,  made  a  showing  in  this  campaign  that  attracted 
nation-wide  attention  andf  resulted  in  giving  great  impetus 
to  the  reform  movement.  When  at  the  opening  of  the  sec 
ond  session  of  the  Thirtieth  Congress  in  1848,  Mr.  Palfrey 
offered  a  bill  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  it  was  not  surprising  that  only  twenty-one  mem 
bers  of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  free  states  could 
be  found  who  were  willing  to  have  their  names  recorded 
against  the  measure.  This  number,  however,  was  sufficient 
to  defeat  the  bill.  Closely  following  the  Palfrey  measure, 
Mr.  Daniel  Gott,  of  New  York,  on  December  30,  1848,  intro 
duced  a  most  radical  resolution,  in  which  slavery  was  de 
nounced  in  the  most  scathing  terms  and  in  which  he  per 
emptorily  demanded  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  This  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  98  to  88,  amid  the  wildest  excitement.  Just  before  the  vote 
was  taken,  Mr.  Venable,  of  North  Carolina,  had  the  question 
so  divided  that  each  member  was  compelled  to  have  his  name 
recorded  directly  for  or  against  slavery.  Every  member  from 
slave  states  voted  in  the  negative,  while  all  but  fifteen  from  the 
free  states  voted  in  the  affirmative.  Even  before  this,  Mr. 
J.  M.  Root,  of  Ohio,  had  introduced  (December  13)  a  resolu 
tion  instructing  the  Committee  on  the  Territories  to  report  a 
bill  excluding  slavery  from  New  Mexico  and  California,  which 
had  been  adopted  by  a  vote  of  108  to  80,  every  Whig  and  all 
but  eight  Democrats  from  the  North  having  voted  for  it. 
Pursuant  to  instruction,  the  Committee  on  Territories  re 
ported  a  bill  in  accordance  with  the  Root  resolution  in  the 

[65] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

early  part  of  1849,  which  was  passed  by  the  House  after  a 
short  debate,  by  a  vote  of  126  to  87,  though  every  member 
from  the  slave  states  voted  against  it.  The  Senate  strove  to 
defeat  this  bill,  and  so  it  was  held  up  and  debated  from  time 
to  time  until  the  last  day  of  the  session  before  it  was  voted 
upon  and  passed  by  that  body. 

For  years  the  slave-holders  had  led  in  the  social  and  politi 
cal  life  about  Washington,  where  they  were  wont  to  stride 
about  followed  by  a  retinue  of  servants  contemptuously 
scowling  at  "Mud  Sills"  from  the  West  and  "Dough  Faces" 
from  the  North  and  East.  They  had  come  to  regard  any  in 
terference  with  their  practices  as  an  unfair  assault  upon  their 
rights.  Nor  were  they  at  all  backward  about  giving  expres 
sion  to  their  feelings  of  resentment.  On  February  13,  1849, 
the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina  transmitted  to  Congress 
and  to  the  governors  of  the  several  states,  copies  of  the  fol 
lowing:  "Resolved,  unanimously,  that  the  time  for  discussion 
by  the  slave-holding  states  of  their  exclusion  from  the  terri 
tory  recently  acquired  from  Mexico  is  past,  and  that  this  Gen 
eral  Assembly,  representing  the  feeling  of  the  State  of  South 
Carolina,  is  prepared  to  co-operate  with  her  sister  states  in 
resisting  the  application  of  the  principles  of  the  Wilmot  Pro 
viso  to  such  territory  at  any  hazard.7  The  slavery  restriction- 
ists  heard  these  resolutions  with  a  stolid  indifference  border 
ing  on  contempt.  But  these  were  exciting  days  in  Congress 
and  there  were  many  happenings  on  the  outside  which  con 
tributed  to  the  general  turmoil.  On  the  17th  of  April  (1848) 
a  party  of  some  eighty  slaves  was  apprehended  in  an  endeavor 
to  effect  their  escape  from  the  District  of  Columbia  and  all 
were  brought  back  and  lodged  in  the  district  jail.  Mr.  Giddings 
promptly  introduced  a  resolution  inquiring  by  what  authority 
the  United  States  jail  was  used  for  such  purpose.  Upon  the 
reading  of  this  resolution  Mr.  Holmes,  of  South  Carolina,  de 
clared  his  intention  to  offer  an  amendment  to  the  resolution 
in  case  it  should  be  pressed,  so  as  to  have  it  include  in  its 
scope  the  inquiry  as  to  whether  the  "scoundrels  who  caused 
the  slaves  to  be  there  should  not  be  hung."  The  matter  caused 


7.  Globe  Second  Session,  Thirtieth  Congress,  p.  519. 

[66] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  greatest  excitement  in  the  House ;  members  arose  en 
masse  and  the  Speaker  was  compelled  to  suspend  everything 
for  some  time  before  order  was  restored.  The  populace  in 
some  way  conceived  the  notion  that  Mr.  Giddings  had  some 
thing  to  do  with  the  plans  of  these  slaves  in  their  attempted 
escape,  and  for  two  nights  a  howling  mob  surrounded  his 
house  threatening  him  and  his  property.  The  situation  be 
came  so  acute  that  Mr.  Palfrey  offered  a  resolution  inquiring 
into  the  behavior  of  this  mob,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  flurry 
caused  by  the  reading  of  this  proposition,  Mr.  Giddings  arose 
and  said  that  he  had  just  visited  the  prisoners  in  his  capacity 
as  a  man  and  a  member  of  the  House,  and  told  them  that  they 
should  have  counsel  and  their  rights  protected.  "Now  let 
gentlemen  say  what  they  please,"  said  he  defiantly. 

The  old  question  as  to  whether  slaves  were  property  again 
had  to  be  answered  by  the  House  in  January,  1849.  A  man 
by  the  name  of  Pacheco  claimed  to  have  lost  a  slave8  through 
the  exigencies  of  the  second  Seminole  War,  in  1835,  and  ac 
cordingly  petitioned  Congress  for  relief.  The  Military  Com 
mittee,  to  which  the  matter  was  referred,  had  made  a  favor 
able  report,  but  when  it  came  to  a  vote  in  the  House  that  body 
refused  to  recognize  the  claim  by  a  vote  of  91  to  89.  In  com 
menting  upon  this  vote,  Mr.  Giddings  said :  "It  sorely  morti 
fied  and  depressed  the  slave-holders  as  it  showed  that  south 
ern  influence  and  party  dictation  could  no  longer  subject  the 
consciences  of  northern  men  to  the  barbarous  doctrine  that 
men  are  property." 

The  only  object  in  allowing  slave-holders  to  count  three- 
fifths  of  their  slaves  for  the  purpose  of  representation  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  was  to  equalize  as 
iar  as  possible  the  influence  between  the  non-slave-holding 
and  the  slave-holding  sections.  This  arrangement  had  been 
seriously  affected  by  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787 
which  had  the  effect  of  excluding  slavery  from  the  great 
Northwest  Territory.  Even  if  Congress  at  this  time  had 
been  willing  to  repeal  this  Ordinance,  it  would  have  availed 

8.  This  man,  claimed  A3  a.  slave,  was  said  to  kave  beem  a  linguist  and  con 
spicuous  for  his  general  intelligence;  and  that  it  was  he  who  led  Major  Dade 
into  the  disastrous  ambush.  See  Exiles  of  Florida,  p.  106. 

[67] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  slave-holders  little,  for  the  people  who  were  settling  in 
the  West  positively  refused  to  permit  slavery,  as  had  been 
evidenced  by  the  defeat  of  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  William 
Henry  Harrison  to  introduce  the  institution  among  them.    In 
the   beginning  the   slave-holding  and  non-slave-holding   sec 
tions  had  started  out  practically  even  both  as  to  population 
and  wealth,  but  now  after  a  period  of  only  fifty  years  the  non- 
slave-holding  section  had  trebled  the  South  in  both  popula 
tion  and  wealth ;  even  those  born  in  the  South  were  rapidly 
emigrating,  while  foreign  immigration  eschewed  that  section 
altogether.9  Efforts  made  to  secure  a  foothold  for  slavery  in 
connection  with   the  acquisition   of  new   territory  had  been 
anything  but  encouraging.    When  Louisiana  was  purchased 
there  wras  comparatively  only  a  small  portion  of  the  territory 
in   which    slavery   was   permitted;    slavery    spread   over   the 
whole  of  Florida  it  is  true,  but  when  this  state,  poor  and  bar 
ren,  was  acquired,  the  great  manufacturing  State  of  Maine 
came  in  to  more  than  offset  it.    When  we  seized  Texas,  an 
other  barren  waste,   for  the  benefit  of   slavery,  there   came 
with  it  California    and    Oregon    with    their    rich    mines,  into 
which  slavery  could    not    enter.     An    Ostend    Manifesto  had 
failed  to  secure  Cuba ;  a  Walker's  Expedition  had  met  with 
unmerciful  disaster  in  Central  America.    These  defeats  ren 
dered  the  South  desperate  and  the  only  possible  hope  left  to 
them  was  in  the  direction  of  making  a  more  determined  stand 
for  the  control  of  more  of  the  territory  which  had  been  ac 
quired  for  the  Union  through  their  ingenious  manipulations. 
The  fair  and  square  issue,  therefore,    as    to    whether  slavery 
should  be  extended  in  the  United  States  was   faced  with  a 
dogged  determination  to  fight  it  out.   The  slave  power,  being 
in  control  of  the  governmental  machinery,  was  already  in  po 
sition  to  test  the  question  as  to  whether  there  was  power  in 
the  national  government  to  compel  non-slave-holding  states 
and  communities  to  recognize  the  institution  in  their  laws  so 
as  to  afford  slave-holders  the  same  protection  in  the  enjoy 
ment  of  slave  service  in  other  parts  of  the  country  as  in  the 


9.  For    statistical    proof   of    these    facts    see    speech    of    Hon.    Charles    Swmner, 
United   States   Senate,  June  4,  1860. 


[68] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

South.  And  while  this  issue  dissolved  the  Whig  party,  it 
clarified  the  atmosphere  by  sectionalizing  the  country.  When 
the  Thirty-first  Congress  met  in  1849-50,  each  section  re 
garded  the  other  as  an  hostile  camp.  The  avowed  supporters 
of  slavery  could  no  longer  ride  rough-shod  over  the  anti- 
slavery  minority  in  the  House,  although  few  of  these  minor 
ity  members  had  been  elected  on  platforms  distinctly  pledg 
ing  them  to  oppose  slavery.  Among  these,  however,  whose 
constituents  had  exacted  of  them  a  pledge  in  opposition  to 
slavery  were  Messrs.  Tuck,  of  New  Hampshire;  Allen,  of 
Massachusetts;  King  of  New  York;  Wilmot,  of  Pennsyl 
vania  ;  Root  and  Giddings,  of  Ohio ;  Julian,  of  Indiana,  and 
Durkee,  of  Wisconsin.  Besides  these  out-and-out  opponents 
of  slavery  there  were  many  others  ready  to  join  the  ranks  at 
the  earliest  hint  from  their  constituents. 

One  by  one  these  representatives  from  the  North,  whether 
Democratic  or  Whig,  who  lacked  the  courage  to  stand  up  and 
be  counted  against  slavery,  were  being  relegated  to  the  rear 
and  left  at  home  by  the  voters.  The  old  political  parties  were 
in  sore  straits  and  this  was  especially  the  case  with  the 
Whigs,  who  had  never  taken  a  very  decided  stand  on  slavery. 
The  Democratic  party,  which  had  always  been  under  the  con 
trol  of  the  southern  planter  barons,  had  the  advantage  of  hav 
ing  a  definite  policy  and  one  about  which  all  their  forces 
could  be  rallied.  In  this  desperate  situation  the  best  the 
Whigs  could  offer  was  a  compromise.  And  so,  on  January 
29,  1850,  Henry  Clay,  the  great  Whig  leader,  offered  a  set  of 
resolutions,  as  follows:  1st,  That  California  be  admitted  into 
the  Union  without  any  restrictions  as  to  slavery ;  5th,  That  it 
is  not  expedient  for  the  United  States  to  abolish  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  without  the  consent  of  Maryland 
and  the  people  of  the  District  of  Columbia  and  without  com 
pensating  the  owners  of  slaves  in  the  said  district ;  6th,  That 
it  is  expedient  to  prohibit  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia ;  8th,  That  Congress  has  no  power  over  the  trade 
between  the  states  but  that  it  should  be  regulated  by  the  pe 
culiar  laws  of  the  respective  states.  The  second,  third  and 
fourth  resolutions  were  of  minor  importance,  but  the  7th  was 

[69] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  last  as  well  as  the  most  fateful  fugitive  slave  law  ever 
passed  by  the  American  Congress.  The  whole  path  of  slavery 
is  marked  with  the  whitening  political  carcasses  of  statesmen 
and  diplomats,  but  this  particular  spot  is  the  very  valley  of 
dry  bones ;  a  great  political  party  went  down  here  into  the 
gaping  arms  of  death,  into  a  yawning  oblivion.  About  here 
will  ever  mope  the  manes  of  Webster,  muttering  in  the  lan 
guage  of  despair:  "I  made  a  mistake."  Here,  Clay,  who  had 
rather  "be  right  than  be  President,"  fell  into  the  political  grave 
which  he  unwittingly  dug  for  his  party  and  which  Stephen 
A.  Douglas  was  destined  to  cover  up  with  his  Squatter  Sover 
eignty  and  then  himself  fall  dead  upon  it,  like  a  hero  in  the 
play.  These  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  committee  of  thir 
teen,  of  which  Mr.  Clay  was  chairman.  The  committee  hav 
ing  elaborated  the  resolutions  into  some  forty  sections,  re 
ported  them  back  May  8th,  1850.  This  committee  was 
composed  of  seven  members  from  slave  and  six  members 
from  free  states.10  Several  amendments  were  offered  during 
the  consideration  of  the  measure,  but  all  were  voted  down 
and  the  bill  was  passed  by  the  Senate  as  it  came  from  the 
committee  on  August  13th,  1850,  by  a  vote  of  34  to  18.  The 
whole  measure  was  bitterly  opposed  by  the  slave  holding 
states  because  they  wanted  it  explicitly  provided  and  under 
stood  that  slave  holders  might  take  their  slaves  into  any  of 
the  territories  and  have  the  protection  of  the  laws  without 
any  doubt  or  question.  All  of  the  eighteen  negative  votes 
came  from  the  South,  ten  of  whose  Senators,  to  wit,  from 
Virginia,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Louisiana  and  Florida, 
immediately  signed  a  protest  which  they  had  read  and  spread 
upon  the  records  of  the  Senate.  After  this  famous  measure 
was  duly  passed  and  signed,  it  was  thought  that  the  trouble 
some  question  was  now  out  of  the  way  at  least  so  far  as 
national  legislation  was  concerned.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact 
the  law  simply  irritated  matters  and  made  the  situation  more 
acute.  Slaves  continued  to  escape  to  the  free  states,  where, 
as  usual,  they  were  enabled  to  elude  their  pursuers ;  and 

10.  Clay,  Cass,  of  Mich.;  Daniel  S.  Young,  N.  Y.;  Jesse  D.  Wright,  Ind.; 
Webster,  Samuel  S.  Phelps,  Vt.;  James  Cooper,  Pa.;  W.  R.  King,  Ala.;  Mason, 
Va.;  Downs,  W.  P.  Magnum,  N.  C;  Bell,  Tenn.;  Berrien,  Ga. 

[70] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

when  slave  hunters  appealed  to  the  authorities,  they  were 
coolly  told  that  no  law  of  Congress  could  compel  men  to  join 
in  the  chase  after  fugitive  slaves. 

Indeed  all  attempts  to  enforce  the  fugitive  slave  law  prov 
ed  absolutely  futile.  People  throughout  the  North  felt  the 
deepest  resentment  at  what  they  regarded  as  an  attempt  to 
compel  them  to  assist  in  running  down  and  catching  men 
to  please  slave  holders.  Mr.  Clay  and  the  politicians  in  gen 
eral  affected  to  ignore  this  popular  furor  as  they  evidently 
felt  and  believed  that  it  would  all  soon  blow  over.  So  con 
fident  was  Mr.  Clay  that  his  famous  compromise  had  settled 
matters,  that  he  peevishly  objected  when  about  this  time, 
Mr.  Chase  wanted  to  offer  a  resolution  touching  slavery  in 
the  territories,  and  declared  "that  peace  now  prevails  on  the 
question  of  slavery,"  and  he  "trusted  that  the  Senate  would 
unhesitatingly  set  its  face  against  any  further  disturbance  of 
this  country."  Mr.  Clay  had  hardly  taken  his  seat  before 
Mr.  Thomas  G.  Pratt  of  Maryland,  arose  for  the  purpose  of 
calling  up  for  consideration  a  bill  providing  for  penalties, 
etc.,  to  be  inflicted  on  persons  found  guilty  of  enticing  slaves 
from  the  District  of  Columbia.  This  incident  caused  no  little 
amusement,  but  Mr.  Clay  evidently  saw  in  it  the  tragic  fail 
ure  of  his  labors  and  the  folly  of  his  remarks  about  the 
question  having  been  settled.  And  it  may  be  here  noticed 
that  the  two  pieces  of  legislation  above  all  others  which 
tend  to  make  the  name  of  Henry  Clay  famous,  were  con 
nected  with  his  endeavors  to  settle  the  slavery  question  by 
compromise,  the  one  occurring  at  the  beginning  of  his  career11 
and  the  other  at  its  end. 


11.  Missouri    Compromise,    1820;    Fugitive    Slave   Law,    1850. 


[71] 


CHAPTER  VIII 


The  Kansas-Nebraska  Troubles — The  Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise — Sumner  in  the  Senate — Douglas  and  Popular  Sov 
ereignty — Sumner  Assaulted  by  Preston  Brooks. 

The  troubles  and  complications  that  arose  in  connection 
with  the  admission  into  the  Union  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
were  unusually  full  of  tragic  interest.  The  subject  appears 
to  have  aroused  every  feeling  involved  in  party  and  sectional 
differences  and  attracted  the  active  participation  of  the  whole 
people.  More  blood  was  shed  on  account  of  this  little  terri 
tory  than  on  account  of  any  other  single  track  of  land  ever 
acquired  by  the  Union,  except  Texas.  Of  course,  the  primary 
cause  of  these  difficulties  was  slavery;  it  has  been  reasonably 
claimed,  however,  that  the  United  States  Senate  which  has 
often  exhibited  something  akin  to  indifference  to  the  wishes 
of  the  people,  was  largely  responsible  for  the  Kansas  strife. 
Early  in  1853,  Mr.  Giddings  reported  a  bill  for  the  admission 
of  these  territories,  which  was  passed  by  the  House  prac 
tically  without  debate.1  This  measure  made  no  mention  of 
slavery  for  the  reason  that  the  whole  territory  was  situated 
north  of  the  line  36  degrees  and  30  minutes,  which  itself 
excluded  slavery.  The  Senate,  however,  unwilling  to  have 
the  states  come  into  the  Union  without  slavery,  refused  to  act 
upon  the  House  Bill  and  hung  the  matter  up.  Early  in  the 
Thirty-third  Congress  which  assembled  in  1854,  Mr.  Dixon 
of  Tennessee,  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  a  bill 
repealing  the  8th  section  of  the  Act  admitting  Missouri,  re 
ferring  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of  the  line  36  de 
grees  and  36  minutes,  whereupon  Mr.  Douglas  moved  to 
recommit  the  whole  subject.  The  Douglas  motion  was 
agreed  to  and  for  the  well  known  purpose  of  formally  re 
pealing  the  Missouri  Compromise.  In  the  meantime  the 
anti-slavery  forces  were  steadily  increasing  at  both  ends  of 


1.  Giddings,  p.  366. 

[72] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  capitol.  Sumner,  who  had  just  made  his  appearance  in 
the  Senate,  joined  with  Giddings  of  the  House  and  some  half 
dozen  others  in  a  signed  address  to  the  people  of  the  nation 
calling  attention  to  what  was  being  done  in  the  direction 
of  the  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  line,  and  asking  them  to 
protest.  And  the  people  did  protest,  the  people  of  the  North, 
East  and  especially  of  the  West.  The  legislature  of  several 
states  adopted  resolutions  denouncing  the  United  States 
Senate  for  its  attitude  on  this  question  in  the  most  vigorous 
and  outspoken  language  while  that  body  was  pilloried  by 
many  of  the  northern  newspapers.  Three  thousand  and  thirty 
clergymen  of  all  denominations  throughout  New  England 
sent  to  Congress  their  "Solemn  protest  against  the  perpetra 
tion  of  this  national  crime  of  extending  slavery  into  territory 
once  free  by  the  voice  of  the  nation.2  But  none  of  these  things 
moved  the  Senate  which  could  hear  only  the  voice  of  its 
master — the  slave  power  operating  through  the  medium  of 
the  Democratic  party.  It  had  been  determined  and  decreed 
that  the  Missouri  line  should  be  abolished  by  the  adoption  of 
the  Douglas'  Popular  Sovereignty  (better  known  as  "Squatter 
Sovereignty")  measure.  Mr.  Douglas  doubtless  thought  he 
had  made  a  clever  move  in  this  matter,  but  it  turned  out  to 
be  the  most  colossal  mistake  that  ever  happened  in  the  career 
of  that  famous  man,  known  the  country  over  as  the  "Little 
Giant."  When  he  moved  to  recommit  the  Dixon  proposition 
just  referred  to,  he  moved  to  commit  not  only  his  own  name 
to  oblivion  but  that  of  the  political  party  made  famous  by  the 
names  of  men  like  Webster,  Clay  and  his  own.  Mr.  Douglas 
defended  himself  with  characteristic  cleverness  against  the 
charge  of  being  responsible  for  all  the  odium  attached  to  the 
doctrine  of  "Squatter  Sovereignty."3  It  was  well  known,  he 
said,  that  anything  like  the  existence  of  a  Missouri  line  had 
been  for  years  ignored ;  in  fact,  had  never  been  recognized ; 
that  the  supposed  settlement  under  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  had  settled  nothing ;  that  slave-holders  traveled  unchal 
lenged  and  often  resided  unmolested  with  their  slaves  in  the 


2.  Giddings,  p.  367. 

3.  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  p.  88. 


[73] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

North  and  elsewhere,  and  most  important  of  all,  the  slave 
power  showed  its  contempt  for  this  supposed  settlement  by 
exerting  every  possible  effort  to  prevent  the  organization  and 
settlement  of  the  territories,  and  that  he  had  simply  at 
tempted  to  counteract,  if  not  to  conciliate,  the  opposition  by 
bringing  forward  his  Popular  Sovereignty  scheme  which  he 
induced  Congress  to  accept.  There  is  no  denying  the  truth  of 
Mr.  Douglas'  claims.  The  fact  that  the  Dred  Scott  case  was 
not  decided  for  more  than  a  year  after  this  time  was  not  be 
cause  of  a  lack  of  material  for  a  similar  contest  years  before 
but  because  it  was  well  known  that  such  a  contest  would 
have  been  a  hopeless  expenditure  of  energy  and  a  wanton 
waste  of  money.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  settlers  were 
filling  up  the  West,  they  could  get  no  assistance  from  Con 
gress,  not  even  to  the  extent  of  being  allowed  to  organize  local 
governments.  If  Mr.  Douglas,  being  a  western  man,  could 
see  no  other  way  of  getting  the  western  territories  organ 
ized  except  by  yielding  to  the  demands  of  the  South,  it  was 
quite  natural  that  he  should  seek  a  pretext,  though  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  he  wrould  have  taken  the  responsibility  of 
obliterating  the  Missouri  line  had  he  been  able  to  foresee  the 
bloody  conflict  impending.  The  scene  of  action  and  the  storm 
center  was  now  immediately  transferred  from  Washington 
to  Kansas.  Under  the  Douglas  plan  the  settlers  were  to  elect 
whether  or  not  they  \vould  permit  slavery  among  them.  But 
it  seems  to  have  been  thought  that  the  actual  and  bona  fide 
settlers  might  not  know  how  to  decide  properly ;  at  all  events 
the  temptation  to  outside  parties  to  determine  this  moment 
ous  question  for  the  settlers  seemed  irresistible. 

Frontier  life  was  too  harsh  and  uninviting  to  attract  the 
easy-going  southerner  to  the  West  as  a  permanent  settler. 
But  people  were  pouring  into  the  West  from  the  East  and 
especially  from  New  England,  all  of  whom  were  bitterly  op 
posed  to  slavery.  Under  the  Popular  Sovereignty  scheme  of 
Senator  Douglas,  it  was  certain  that  slavery  would  be  ex 
cluded  in  the  organization  of  the  territory  by  an  overwhelm 
ing  vote  should  the  question  be  referred  to  the  bona  fide  set 
tlers.  But  the  slave  power  did  not  wish  any  such  thing  to 

[74] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

happen  if  it  could  be  prevented  by  either  fair  or  foul  means. 
Hordes  of  poor  whites  and  reckless  adventurers  were  induced 
to  cross  over  from  Missouri  into  Kansas,  terrorize  and  if 
necessary  murder  the  bona  fide  settlers  and  to  "squat"  there 
long  enough  to  vote  slavery  into  the  territory.  These  organ 
ized  bands  of  "Border  Ruffians,"  as  they  were  called,  at  first 
had  everything  their  own  way  as  the  settlers  were  unorgan 
ized  and  generally  scattered,  thereby  becoming  easy  victims 
of  the  torch  and  dagger  of  these  thugs.  Nearly  every  settler 
within  reach  of  the  Missouri  boundary  had  his  crops  de 
stroyed,  his  barns  and  storehouses,  and  even  his  dwelling 
burned ;  and  these  savage  raiders  would  be  merrier  still  when 
ever  they  could  add  the  life  of  an  anti-slavery  settler  to  the 
list  of  casualties.4  Reports  of  these  barbarities  naturally 
aroused  the  people  of  the  East  whence  these  settlers  had 
come.  For  the  more  speedy  relief  of  the  Kansas  sufferers,  an 
Immigrant  Aid  Society  was  formed  in  New  England,  the  ob 
ject  and  purpose  of  which  was  to  encourage  men  to  go  to  the 
assistance  of  the  Kansas  farmers  in  their  struggles  with  the 
border  raiders.  Violent  conflicts  between  the  Missouri  raiders 
and  the  Kansas  homesteaders  were  of  almost  daily  occur 
rence.  It  was  in  one  of  these  battles  that  John  Brown  first 
distinguished  himself  as  a  militant  Abolitionist.  Brown  had 
several  sons  who  had  established  themselves  in  this  disturbed 
section.  These  young  men  had  accumulated  considerable 
property,  all  of  which  had  been  taken  away  or  destroyed  by 
the  raiders.  Few  of  these  farmers  were  supplied  with  fire-arms 
or  other  defensive  weapons.  Relatives  and  friends  in  the 
East  undertook  to  ship  weapons  to  these  farmers,  but  such 
efforts  failed  owing  to  the  fact  that  all  such  supplies  and  ma 
terials  were  intercepted  and  confiscated  by  the  enemy  on  the 
Missouri  border.  After  having  made  several  futile  attempts 
to  equip  his  sons,  John  Brown  packed  several  cases  of  arms, 
put  them  on  the  train  as  baggage  and  took  them  to  Kansas 
himself.  He  made  a  careful  distribution  of  his  arms  and 
calmly  awaited  the  next  invasion.  He  did  not  have  to  wait 
long,  because  the  time  was  drawing  near  when  delegates 

4.  Amer.  Conf.,  Vol.  I,  p.  235;  Garrison,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  417. 

[75] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

were  to  be  chosen  who  were  to  sit  in  the  convention  called 
to  formulate  a  constitution  for  the  state  to  be  voted  on  later 
by  the  citizens,  and  it  was  important  that  the  Missourians 
should  keep  actively  at  their  work  of  terrifying  and  murder 
ing  these  settlers  from  the  East  to  keep  them  from  control- 
ing  the  convention.  Of  course  these  raiders  never  desired  or 
expected  to  be  citizens  of  Kansas  and  only  crossed  the  border 
from  Missouri  for  the  purpose  of  "squatting"  or  camping  in 
Kansas  long  enough  to  saddle  on  the  state  a  pro-slavery  con 
stitution  to  be  proclaimed  as  the  work  of  the  actual  settlers. 
It  was  this  well-known  purpose  and  attitude  of  the  Mis 
sourians  living  along  or  near  the  border  of  Kansas  that 
caused  the  Popular  Sovereignty  measure  of  Senator  Douglas 
to  become  stigmatized  as  "Squatter  Sovereignty"  and  to  be 
come  damned  to  fame  as  such.  These  border  ruffians,  as  they 
were  aptly  called,  in  pushing  their  campaign,  soon  encoun 
tered  old  John  Brown  and  his  men,  at  Osawatomie.  Few  of 
these  Missourians  ever  got  back  to  their  homes ;  few  ever 
reached  the  border.  After  this  decided  victory,  Brown,  hav 
ing  every  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  raiders  might  be  re 
inforced  by  the  whole  State  of  Missouri  and  perhaps  by  Fed 
eral  troops,  slipped  out  of  the  state  by  way  of  Canada,  after 
having  made  further  reprisals  on  the  Missourians  by  gather 
ing  up  and  carrying  off  with  him  some  of  their  slaves.  Brown, 
by  using  various  aliases  and  disguises,  finally  got  back  to 
New  England,  where  he  at  once  began  to  make  preparations 
for  his  famous  raid  at  Harper's  Ferry,  then  a  town  of  Vir 
ginia,  which  he  executed  a  few  years  later.  To  say  that  John 
Brown  and  his  men  caused  the  greatest  excitement  in  Kansas 
is  to  put  it  mildly ;  they  created  a  sensation  throughout  the 
nation.  No  peaceful  farmer  in  Kansas  ever  dreaded  or  had 
cause  to  dread  the  appearance  of  a  band  of  hostile  In 
dians  half  so  much  as  they  did  these  Missouri  raiders,  who 
knew  the  language,  the  strength  and  weakness,  the  habits 
and  connections  of  the  settlers;  they  knew  how,  when  and 
where  to  strike  to  accomplish  the  most  harm  and  to  bring  on 
the  greatest  amount  of  distress.  Nor  did  this  annihilation  of 
this  band  at  Osawatomie  by  John  Brown  deter  others  from 

[76] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

coming  over  and  taking  forcible  possession  of  the  polls  on 
the  day  of  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  constitutional  con 
vention  and  seeing  to  it  that  only  men  were  returned  as 
elected  who  favored  a  pro-slavery  constitution.  These  "squat 
ters,"  supplemented  by  special  troops  of  raiders,  returned 
large  numbers  of  votes  from  precincts  where  it  was  known 
that  hardly  a  handful  of  votes  had  been  cast  and  even  from 
places  where  no  polls  had  ever  been  opened.  Delegates  thus 
"elected"  met  and  formed  a  so-called  constitution,  known  as 
the  Lecompton  Constitution,  which,  of  course,  made  ample 
provision  for  slavery.  This  was  forthwith  submitted  to  and 
was  "ratified"  by  this  same  lawless  element  and  had  it  re 
ported  as  the  work  of  "the  people  of  Kansas."  And  this  re 
port  had  behind  it  the  support  of  President  Pierce  and  his  ad 
ministration  as  well  as  that  of  the  entire  Democratic  press. 
Were  it  not  for  the  actual  tragedy  involved,  the  whole  thing 
might  be  passed  over  as  a  huge  joke.  And  so  it  seems  to  have 
been  regarded  by  the  actual  settlers  who,  in  total  disregard 
of  the  whole  proceeding,  called  a  convention  of  their  own  and 
formulated  a  constitution  excluding  slavery,  which  was  rati 
fied  practically  by  a  unanimous  vote.5  The  contest  was  thus 
thrown  back  into  Congress  for  a  determination  as  to  which 
instrument  really  emanted  from  the  people  of  Kansas.  The 
anti-slavery  forces  in  Congress  were  sufficiently  strong  to  re 
sist  with  effect  and  in  this  contest  they  won  after  a  protracted 
struggle.6  The  slave-holding  interests  are  generally  held  re 
sponsible  for  the  great  loss  of  life  and  property  incident  to 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  troubles.  Mr.  Douglas,  however,  in 
speaking  of  the  matter,  in  his  "Constitutional  and  Party 
Questions,"  refers  to  the  Immigrant  Aid  Societies  of  New 
England  with  great  bitterness,  and  lays  a  large  share  of  the 
responsibility  at  their  door.  It  is  admitted  ,  however,  that 
those  who  went  to  Kansas  from  the  East  did  so  with  a  bona 
fide  intention  of  settling,  while  the  forays  from  Missouri 
were  known  to  have  been  gotten  up  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
terrorizing  these  settlers  in  the  hope  of  forcing  them  to  ac 
cept  slavery. 

5.  Amer.    Conflict    I,    p.    241. 

6.  Un  :ble    to    come    in    without    slavery,    Kansas    remained    out    of    the    Union 
until   Feb.    19,   1861— Long's   Hist.   Rep.    V  rty,   p.   S3. 

[77] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

The  Douglas  measure  was,  as  a  whole,  pro-slavery.  "The 
three  things,"  said  he,  "for  which  the  bill  was  offered  were: 
First,  that  all  questions  arising  out  of  slavery  should  be  set 
tled  by  the  people  of  the  territories  in  which  they  were 
raised;  second,  that  cases  involving  the  title  to  slaves  or  per 
sonal  freedom,  should  be  appealed  from  local  tribunals  to  the 
Supreme  Court;  third,  that  the  fugitive  slave  law  should 
apply  to  the  territories."  The  remaining  fragments  of  the 
Whig  party  in  both  Houses  of  Congress  combined  with  the 
Democrats  to  pass  the  Douglas  bill,  the  vote  in  the  Senate 
having  been  37  to  14  (March  3,  1854),  and  in  the  House  113  to 
100  (May  24,  1854),  while  the  Free  Soilers  were  unanimous 
in  their  opposition. 

At  the  opening  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress  (1855),  Mr. 
Henry  M.  Fuller,  a  representative  from  Pennsylvania,  offered 
a  resolution  of  the  following  tenor:  "Resolved,  that  a  useless 
and  factious  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  either  in  or  out 
of  Congress  is  unwise,  unjust  to  a  portion  of  the  American 
people  and  injurious  to  the  country  and  should  be  discon 
tinued,"  whereupon  Mr.  James  Meacham,  of  Vermont,  of 
fered  the  following  as  a  substitute,  which  was  adopted  108  to 
93 :  "Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  House,  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820,  prohibiting  slavery  north 
of  the  line  of  36  degrees  and  30  minutes,  was  an  example  of 
a  useless  and  factious  agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  both 
in  and  out  of  Congress,  which  was  unwise  and  unjust  to  a 
portion  of  the  American  people." 

Charles  Sumner  had  hardly  been  in  the  Senate  a  year  when 
he  took  occasion  to  make  one  of  his  great  speeches  against 
slavery  in  connection  with  the  Kansas  discussion,  and  on  ac 
count  of  some  pointed  references  to  South  Carolina,  Preston 
Brooks,  a  Representative  from  that  state,  committed  a  cow 
ardly  and  brutal  assault  upon  Mr.  Sumner  while  he  sat  alone 
in  the  Senate  Chamber.  In  consequence  of  this  assault  Mr. 
Sumner  was  absent  from  his  seat  for  about  four  years.  Thus 
slavery  continued  to  show  itself  to  be  the  most  unfortunate 
of  human  institutions,  as  it  undoubtedly  tends  to  transform 
men  into  chattels  and  brutes  on  the  one  hand,  and  tyrants 

and  brutes  on  the  other. 

[78] 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Organization  of  the  Republican  Party — The  Nomination  of 
Fremont  and  Dayton — Exciting  Campaign  and  Election  of 
Buchanan — The  Candidates,  Platforms  and  Conventions  of 
1860 — Dred  Scott  Decision — John  Brown's  Raid — Preparation 
for  Rebellion  in  Anticipation  of  Lincoln's  Election — Northern 
Newspapers  Encourage  South  to  Rebel — The  Speakership  Con 
test — Republicans  Hedge — Jeff  Davis  Sets  Forth  Position  of 
the  South — Revival  of  Foreign  Slave  Trade  Just  Before  War. 

It  took  the  Whig  party  just  about  ten  years  to  die,  begin 
ning  with  the  admission  of  Texas,  in  1845,  and  ending  with 
the  Kansas  troubles.  The  admission  of  Texas,  the  fugitive 
slave  law  of  1850,  and  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  which  was 
attempted  to  be  forced  upon  Kansas,  are  the  three  signal  in 
cidents  which  contributed  principally  to  the  immediate  or 
ganization  of  the  Republican  party.  This  party  was  formed 
by  a  combination  of  three  distinct  sets  of  men.  First,  there 
were  those  whose  sentiments  and  utterances  had  been  for 
years  opposed  to  slavery,  chief  among  whom  were  Sumner, 
Chase,  Julian,  Wilmot,  Stevens  and  the  veteran  Giddings,  who 
for  twenty  years  before  the  organization  of  the  Republican 
party,  had  led  a  forlorn  hope  in  Congress  against  the  forces 
of  slavery;  perhaps  F.  P.  Blair  and  Preston  King,  both  of 
whom,  like  Chase,  had  been  Democrats,  properly  belong  in 
this  class ;  a  second  class  coming  almost  exclusively  from  the 
Whigs,  was  composed  of  such  men  as  Lincoln,  Greeley  and 
Seward,  who  were  said  to  have  been  driven  out  of  their  party 
by  the  measure  of  1850.  The  third  and  last  element  of  great 
men  to  unite  in  the  promotion  of  the  Republican  party,  were 
the  War  Democrats,  such  as  Gen.  B.  F.  Butler,  Generals  Me- 
Clellan,  Logan  and  Sickles.  Andrew  Johnson  also  belongs  in 
this  class.  The  most  of  these  men  returned  to  the  Democratic 
party  at  the  close  of  the  war  or  during  reconstruction.  These 
several  elements  entered  the  organization  in  the  order  named. 
The  party  adopted  its  name  at  a  convention  held  at  Jackson, 
Mich.,  July  6,  1854,  and  within  one  year  after  its  organization 
it  carried  fifteen  states  and  elected  eleven  Senators.1 


1.  "The   Liberator"  25:    106. 

[79] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

For  years  the  people  of  the  non-slave  holding  states  had 
been  looking  to  the  Whig  party  for  protection  of  their  inter 
ests  against  the  aggressions  of  slavery,  and  for  years  they 
had  been  betrayed.  It  was  known  that  the  South  was  a  po 
litical  unit  and  that  a  large  part  of  the  North  was  in  sympathy 
with  them,  while  the  rest  of  the  northerners  were  indifferent. 
The  Whig  leaders,  therefore,  had  always  been  willing  to 
make  terms  with  the  South.  Indeed,  the  Democrats  and 
Whigs  of  the  South  had  always  been  together  on  the  slavery 
question  while  the  two  parties  in  the  North  were  divided;  the 
northern  Democrats  supported  their  southern  brethren,  while 
the  northern  Whigs  had  either  to  go  along  with  the  southern 
wing  of  the  party  or  be  left  in  a  hopeless  minority.  Respon 
sibility  for  the  growth  and  spread  of  slavery  rests  largely 
with  the  North.  So  obsequious  did  northern  politicians  be 
come  that  it  was  derisively  said  of  them  that  whenever  they 
wanted  to  make  a  political  speech  they  would  turn  their  faces 
southward ;  and  on  every  proposition  that  came  up,  however 
vital  it  was  to  the  interests  of  their  constituents  they 
seem  to  have  felt  that  they  had  done  their  full  duty  when 
a  compromise  was  affected  though  the  main  points  might  be 
sacrificed.  When  the  South  demanded  Texas  for  the  benefit 
of  slavery  through  the  Democratic  party  organization,  and  the 
rest  of  the  country  protested  and  protested  with  the  most 
earnest  vigor,  the  Whig  party  pretended  to  represent  the 
anti-Texas  sentiment  and  was  so  brazenly  loud  in  such  pre 
tensions  that  the  people  put  them  in  power  through  the  elec 
tion  of  Harrison  and  Tyler.  But  as  soon  as  they  got  control 
of  the  government,  without  hesitation,  shame  or  compunction, 
they  brazenly  betrayed  their  trust  without  even  so  much  as 
a  compromise  on  the  Texas  question.  When  the  South  de 
manded  the  unrestricted  extension  of  slavery,  and  the  rest 
of  the  country  sought  to  unite  and  exert  their  opposition 
through  the  medium  of  the  Whig  party,  they  were  given  the 
Compromise  Act  of  1850,  together  with  an  odious  and  ill- 
fated  fugitive  slave  law.  When  the  South  (always  and  ever 
working  through  its  Democratic  party)  demanded  the  nullifi 
cation  of  the  Missouri  line  in  order  that  slavery  might  be  car- 
ISO] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ried  into  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  the  rest  of  the  country 
protested  and  sought  to  unite  and  direct  their  protest  through 
the  medium  of  the  Whig  party,  that  party  gave  them  "Squat 
ter  Sovereignty/'  And  so  the  country  after  many  trials  and 
betrayals  repudiated  the  Whig  party;  and  so  the  Republican 
party,  like  the  fabled  Greek  god,  was  born  full  grown.  Be 
sides,  the  great  Whig  leaders  like  Webster  and  Clay  were  now 
dead.  Had  they  survived,  those  of  the  North  would  have 
doubtless  joined  the  new  party  and  Webster  would  have 
known  where  to  go  for  political  shelter  from  the  storm  of 
disgust  and  indignation  that  was  beating  down  upon  the 
heads  of  the  Whigs ;  for  he  would  have  seen  that  the  people, 
thoroughly  tired  of  evasion  and  equivocation,  were  now  ter 
ribly  in  earnest  against  the  extension  of  slavery,  not  so  much 
because  of  any  humanitarian  interest  in  the  Negro  or  his 
cause,  but  because  they  saw  how  slavery  had  blighted  the 
South  by  robbing  labor  of  its  dignity  and  other  rewards  and 
knew  that  the  same  fate  awaited  the  yeomanry  of  the  North 
should  the  institution  be  allowed  to  pollute  their  atmosphere. 
They  did  not  love  the  Negro  or  his  cause  so  much  but  they 
hated  slavery  and  its  influence  more. 

Fremont  and  Dayton  were  nominated  at  Philadelphia  on 
June  17,  1856,  by  men  solemnly  pledged  to  the  restriction  of 
slavery  under  the  name  of  the  Republican  party  and  with  the 
battle  cry  of  "Free  Soil,  Free  Speech,  Freemen  and  Fremont," 
the  new  party  entered  upon  a  campaign  never  to  be  forgotten. 
Fremont  and  Dayton  carried  New  York  by  a  plurality  of  some 
eighty  thousand,  besides  carrying  all  of  New  England,  Ohio, 
Michigan,  Wisconsin  and  Iowa,  giving  them  in  all  one  hun 
dred  and  fourteen  votes  in  the  electoral  college.  The  popular 
vote  was  as  follows:  Buchanan  (Democrat),  1,838,169;  Fre 
mont  (Republican),  1,341,264;  Fillmore  (Whig),  874,534. 

The  South  clearly  saw  in  the  rise  of  the  Republican  party 
a  determination  on  the  part  of  the  non-slave  holding  states  to 
exercise  all  their  reserved  powers  against  the  further  en 
croachments  of  slavery  and  to  do  so  without  apologizing  and 
with  the  consciousness  of  superior  strength.  All  efforts  to 
make  peace  were  therefore  discountenanced  by  the  slave- 

[81] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

holders,  who  now  began  openly  to  encourage  a  widening  of 
the  breach  between  the  two  sections  and  to  prepare  for  the 
consequences.  While  Congress  itself  practically  marked  time 
without  making  much  history  on  the  slavery  question  during 
the  period  immediately  following  the  election  of  Buchanan, 
southern  statesmen  outside  of  Congress  were  busily  prepar 
ing  for  rebellion.  There  also  happened  certain  events  like  the 
Dred  Scott  Decision  and  the  raid  of  John  Brown  that  kept 
the  anti-slavery  forces  keyed  up  to  the  highest  tension. 

The  Democratic  Convention,  which  met  at  Charleston  in 
1860  gave  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  South 
intended  to  have  either  slavery  extension  or  secession.  On 
account  of  their  inability  to  agree  on  a  platform,  the  conven 
tion  was  forced  to  adjourn  without  nominating  any  candi 
dates.  There  were  two  instruments  presented,  one  by  Mr. 
Avery  representing  a  majority  of  both  the  platform  commit 
tee  and  the  assembled  delegates,  but  a  minority  of  the  elect 
ors,  and  another  reported  by  a  minority  of  the  committee  but 
representing  179  of  the  299  electoral  votes.  Finally  a  plat 
form  which  confirmed  the  Dred  Scott  Decision,  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  the  Ostend  Manifesto  and  Popular  Sovereignty, 
was  worked  out  and  presented.  The  whole  northern  wing  of 
the  party  agreed  to  swallow  all  of  this,  but  the  southern  con 
tingent  rebelled.  The  southern  delegates  had  been  pledged 
to  vote  against  Popular  Sovereignty.  The  defeat  of  slavery 
in  Kansas  in  spite  of  fraud  and  stuffed  ballot  boxes  was  suf 
ficient  to  convince  the  slave  power  that  this  plank  was  too 
weak  to  sustain  the  ponderous  weight  of  slavery.  The  plank 
in  the  Avery  platform  for  which  they  contended  was :  "That 
the  government  of  the  territories  organized  by  Congress  is 
provisional  and  temporary,  and  that  during  its  existence  all 
citizens  of  the  United  States  have  an  equal  right  to  settle 
with  their  slave  property  in  the  territories  without  their 
rights,  either  of  person  or  property,  being  destroyed  or  im 
paired  by  Congressional  or  territorial  legislation."  The  south 
ern  delegates,  having  been  pledged  to  stand  for  such  a  decla 
ration  in  the  Democratic  platform,  could  accept  nothing  less. 
L.  P.  Walker,  therefore,  withdrew  his  Alabama  delegation 

[82] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

from  the  convention  which  was  followed  by  the  withdrawal 
of  all  the  southern  delegates.2  Butler,  then  avowing  that  he 
disagreed  with  both  platforms  as  reported,  withdrew  his 
Massachusetts  delegation ;  and  so  amid  the  wildest  excite 
ment,  the  convention  broke  up  to  meet  at  Baltimore  June  18. 
Before  the  convention  reassembled  a  majority  of  the  seceders 
met  and  agreed  upon  the  original  Avery  Platform ;  still  when 
they  came  together  at  Baltimore,  the  wild  scenes  witnessed 
at  Charleston  were  repeated  and  a  large  number  of  the  dele 
gates  again  withdrew,  among  them  being  those  from  Massa 
chusetts,  under  the  leadership  of  Butler,  who  left,  declaring 
that  he  "would  not  sit  in'  a  convention  where  the  African 
slave  trade  which  had  been  made  piracy  by  the  laws  of  his 
country,  was  openly  advocated.3 

While  the  Democrats  were  shaking  out  of  their  party  those 
who  were  unwilling  to  make  slavery  national,  the  Whig 
party,  once  so  prosperous  and  so  proud  under  the  leadership 
of  its  Webster  and  Clay,  met  at  Baltimore  on  May  19,  under 
the  name  and  style  of  Constitutional  American  party,  and 
nominated  Edward  Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  for  President, 
and  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  for  Vice-President.  Though  Mr. 
Everett  was  an  able  and  scholarly  man,  his  party  was  at  that 
time  dead.  Even  the  name  "Whig"  had  dropped  out  of  the 
lexicon  of  American  politics  except  as  that  of  a  party  that 
used  to  be. 

It  was  an  intrepid  body  that  met  at  Chicago  on  May  16, 
1860,  composing  the  second  national  convention  of  the  Re 
publican  party.  Among  other  things  for  which  this  gathering 
was  noted  was  the  large  number  of  men  before  that  time  un 
known  who  flashed  into  lasting  prominence  from  the  hour  of 
their  appearance  at  that  convention.  A  majority  of  these  dele 
gates  were  young  men ;  and  they  neither  sought  to  dodge  any 
issue  nor  to  compromise  any  principle,  as  had  been  the  cus 
tom  with  their  fathers,  nor  did  they  sugar-coat  their  words. 
With  a  hurrah  they  brought  out  a  platform  which  emphati- 


2.  Amer.  Conflict,  I,  p.  312;  Stanwood,   I860. 

3.  Gaulden,    of   Georgia,    in    his    speech    before    the    convention,    said    that    the 
slave  trader  was  the  true  Union  man  and  that  the  African  slave  catchers  were 
the   best   missionaries.     Amer.   Conflict,  I,  p.   316. 


[83] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

cally  declared  against  any  extension  of  slavery  and  had  such 
a  determined  ring  on  the  whole  as  to  make  it  about4  as  dis 
tasteful  to  the  slave  power  as  an  out-and-out  demand  for  im 
mediate  emancipation  would  have  been.  A  limitless  amount  of 
campaign  material  was  furnished  the  Republicans  by  the 
Dred  Scott  Decision,  in  which  Judge  Taney  evidently  aimed 
to  strengthen  the  fugitive  slave  law  of  1850  and  to  settle  the 
Kansas  question.  It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  this  decision 
was  in  accord  with  the  Democratic  party  on  those  questions 
as  well  as  the  public  sentiment  that  had  prevailed  before  that 
time.  The  able  jurist  went  too  far  when,  speaking  generally, 
he  said  that  it  was  regarded  as  an  axiom  in  law  and  morals 
that  black  men  had  no  rights  that  white  men  were  bound  to 
respect.  The  judge  was  thought  to  have  made  an  error 
equally  grave  when  he  asserted  that  black  men  could  not  be 
regarded  as  citizens  because  none  exercised  the  privileges  of 
citizenship.  These  errors  would  not  have  been  so  apparent 
had  the  laws  of  Massachusetts,  for  instance,  and  those  of  all 
the  other  states,  been  similar  to  those  of  Maryland,  Mr. 
Taney's  home  state.  In  some  of  the  states  of  the  Union 
colored  people  have  always  had  some  protection  under  both 
the  moral  and  civil  law.  Even  under  the  revised  constitutions 
which  the  slave  power  caused  to  be  adopted  by  most  of  the 
states,  the  privilege  of  voting,  some  times  regarded  as  the 
highest  prerogative  of  citizenship,  was  never  taken  away  by 
all  the  states.  Even  in  Ohio,  where  many  pretensions  were 
made  to  conform  to  the  mandate  of  the  South  so  to  revise  the 
laws  as  to  reduce  the  slaves  and  free  colored  people  to  as 
nearly  the  same  plane  as  possible,  all  persons  having  as  much 
as  "seven-eighths"  white  blood  could  still  vote.  So  Judge 
Taney  was  bitterly  scored  and  the  errors  into  which  he  had 
fallen  were  so  apparent  even  to  the  dullest  mind,  that  his 
effort  to  help  the  slave  power  had  quite  the  reverse  effect. 

Another  thing  that  contributed  to  the  excitement  of  the 
time  even  more  than  the  Dred  Scott  Decision,  was  the  raid  of 
John  Brown  at  Harper's  Ferry  in  1859.  This  raid  created  a 
sensation  throughout  the  whole  country  and  served  greatly 


4.  Stanwood,  1860. 

[84] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

to  intensify  feeling  against  the  institution  of  slavery.  Sena 
tor  Mason,  of  Virginia,  brought  the  matter  to  the  attention 
of  Congress  by  the  introduction  of  a  resolution  demanding 
an  investigation.  This  attempt  on  the  part  of  John  Brown 
to  free  the  slaves  by  use  of  the  arms  which  he  had  seized 
from  the  United  States  arsenal  was  thought  to  have  been  in 
defensible  as  well  as  untimely  and  unwise,  and  Mr.  Mason 
thought  that  if  it  could  be  in  any  way  connected  with  the  Re 
publican  party  and  its  supposed  Abolitionist  following,  the 
fact  would  serve  as  a  good  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  Demo 
crats  and  conservatives  in  the  pending  campaign.  The  Re 
publicans,  however,  blandly  denied  responsibility,  and  by  an 
amendment  to  the  measure  offered  by  Senator  Trumbull,  of 
Illinois,  demanding  an  investigation  into  the  Missouri  forays 
and  the  looting  of  the  arsenals  of  that  state  for  use  against 
the  settlers  of  Kansas,  Mr.  Mason  and  his  party  were  put  on 
the  defensive  and  the  current  of  the  whole  proceeding  was 
changed.  Mr.  Trumbull's  amendment  was  voted  down,  still 
it  served  its  purpose  in  giving  the  Republicans  a  theme  for 
discussion  without  touching  the  merits  of  the  Harper's  Ferry 
raid.  In  the  discussion  which  took  place  in  connection  with 
these  measures,  much  light  was  thrown  on  the  Kansas 
troubles.  While  no  one  undertook  to  defend  John  Brown  di 
rectly,  many  facts  were  adduced  which  tended  to  show  that 
his  rashness  was  not  altogether  devoid  of  extenuating  fea 
tures.  It  was  shown  that  one  of  Brown's  sons  had  been  shot 
to  death  in  cold  blood  in  Kansas  by  one  Martin,  a  preacher; 
and  that  another  one  of  Brown's  sons  had  been  seized,  tied 
to  the  tail  of  a  horse  and  dragged  until  he  had  become  a  rav 
ing  maniac,  and  that  all  their  property  had  been  destroyed  on 
more  than  one  occasion  by  raiders  from  Missouri.  These 
things  were  aired  in  a  manner  that  entirely  diverted  attention 
from  the  subject  of  Mr.  Mason's  resolutions,  although  some 
advantage  was  taken  of  the  occasion  to  arraign  the  Abolition 
ists  and  the  "Black  Republicans."  The  report  of  Mr.  Mason's 
committee,  January  15,  1860,  placed  the  responsibility  for  the 
Harper's  Ferry  raid  upon  the  shoulders  of  John  Brown  and 
there  the  matter  ended. 

[85] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

The  campaign  of  1860  was  one  of  suppressed  excitement. 
The  Fremont  campaign,  four  years  before,  had  effervesced 
with  enthusiasm,  open,  boisterous,  loud;  but  in  1860  every 
thing  seemed  to  be  touched  with  a  sense  of  responsibility 
quite  sublime.  The  very  air  seemed  laden  with  awful  fore 
bodings.  The  South  assumed  an  air  of  stolid  indifference  as 
to  the  election  of  its  candidates  that  made  the  Republicans 
dread  their  own  success ;  for  it  was  well  known  for  a  year 
previous  to  the  election  that  Lincoln  would  be  elected  and 
that  the  South  in  that  event  would  secede  from  the  Union. 
Mr.  Floyd,  President  Buchanan's  Secretary  of  War,  had  been 
for  two  years  shipping  arms  from  arsenals  in  the  North  to 
southern  arsenals.5  Besides  this,  certain  northern  newspapers 
had  been  doing  all  in  their  power  to  encourage  the  South  to 
rebel.6  These  journals  declared  that  if  the  North  should  at 
tempt  to  prosecute  war  against  the  South,  there  would  be  "a 
fire  kindled  in  their  (the  North's)  rear  as  well  as  in  the 
front ;"  that  northern  capitalists  had  large  sums  invested  in 
southern  securities  which,  under  no  circumstances,  would 
they  see  destroyed  or  impaired  in  the  prosecution  of  a  useless 
Abolitionist  War.  Besides,  much  of  such  encouraging  talk  of 
this  kind  on  the  part  of  northern  men  who,  in  the  end  turned 
against  the  South  or  maintained  an  unfriendly  silence,  the 
question  as  to  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede  from  the  Union 
had  never  been  settled.  The  political  school  of  Jefferson  had 
always  tended  to  exalt  the  state  above  the  nation.  New  Eng 
land  was  supposed  to  have  claimed  the  right  of  secession  in 
1812;  Calhoun  boldly  asserted  it  in  1832;  some  of  the  most 
famous  Abolitionists  of  the  East  were  preaching  this  very 
doctrine  at  this  time,  declaring  that  slavery  was  maintained 
in  the  South  by  reason  of  the  protection  afforded  by  the  na 
tion's  arms.7  In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts  and  the  alluring 


5.  Amer.  Conflict,  I,  p.  408. 

6.  A    Democratic    mass-meeting,    held    in    Philadelphia,    January    16,    1861,    just 
after   Davis    was    elected    President    of   the    Confederacy    resolved:    "That    if   the 
South   should   separate   from   the  Union,   Pennsylvania's   sympathy   will  be   with 
our  brethren     of  the   South   whose   wrongs   we   feel   as  our  own." — Long's   Hist. 
Rep.   Party,  p.  53;  ex-Governor  Rodman  P.  Price,  of  New  Jersey,  in  a  letter  to 
M.    F.    Maury,    of    Fredericksburg,    Va.,    in    the    spring   of    '61,    said    that    "New 
Jersey  would  go  with  the  South  from  every  wise,  prudential  and  patriotic  con 
sideration."— Ibid.,   p.   57;    for   specimen   editorials   of   the   Albany    (N.Y.)    Argus, 
New  York  Herald  and  Boston   Despatch,  vide  Amer.   Conflict,  pp.  355  and  396. 

7.  Vide  Life  of  Garrison,  also  Austin's     Wendell   Phillips. 

[86] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

possibility  of  the  establishment  of  a  new  confederacy  to  be 
received  into  the  kingdom  of  nations,  that  might  adhere  to 
such  practices  as  should  be  considered  to  be  to  its  advantage, 
and  whose  commercial  fleets,  flying  the  "Stars  and  Bars" 
might  forever  plough  the  ocean  between  the  free-trade  ports 
of  Charleston  and  Liverpool,  the  South  had  every  temptation 
to  secede  in  1861.  And  so,  as  soon  as  the  election  of  Lincoln 
was  announced,  Governor  Gist,  of  South  Carolina,  recom 
mended  to  the  legislature  of  his  state  the  necessity  of  taking 
the  proper  steps  for  withdrawal  from  the  Union.  The  critical 
situation  put  the  now  dominant  party  on  the  defensive  lest 
it  should  seem  to  be  driving  the  South  out  of  the  Union. 
That  the  Republican  party  assumed  this  guarded  attitude  was 
clearly  shown  in  the  contest  for  Speaker  of  the  House  in 
1860.  Indeed,  as  late  as  March  2,  1861,  both  Houses  adopted 
a  resolution  proposing  a  constitutional  amendment  denying 
to  Congress  the  power  to  abolish  slavery.8  The  Speakership 
contest  afforded  a  splendid  opportunity  for  a  line-up  of  the 
members  of  the  House.  Support  of  Sherman,  the  Republican 
candidate,  in  the  eyes  of  the  South,  meant  hostility  to  slavery, 
while  support  of  Bocock,  of  Virginia,  meant  the  reverse. 
Secession  was  imminent  and  the  Democrats  were  charging 
the  Republicans  with  responsibility ;  they  were  charged  with 
having  a  friendly  interest  in  the  slaves  and  with  affiliation 
with  the  Abolitionists,  all  of  which  the  Republican  leaders 
denied.  When  John  Sherman,  the  Republican  candidate  for 
Speaker,  who  was  being  arraigned  by  the  Democrats  on  ac 
count  of  his  supposed  anti-slavery  proclivities  in  general  and 
particularly  his  alleged  indorsement  of  a  pamphlet  then  re 
cently  published9  advocating  the  boycotting  of  the  products 
of  slave  labor  by  the  people  of  the  North,  arose  and  said: 
"Allow  me  to  say  once  for  all  (I  have  said  it  five  times  on 
this  floor)  that  I  am  opposed  to  any  interference  by  the 
people  of  other  states  with  the  relation  of  master  and  slave 
in  the  slave  states,"  there  was  applause  in  the  Hall  and  in  the 
galleries  and  not  a  word  of  protest.10  Notwithstanding  the 


8.  Long's   Hist.   Rep.   Party,  p.  67. 

9.  "The  Impending  Crisis,"  by  Helper. 

10.  Cong.   Globe,   First  Session  Thirty- sixth  Congress,  p.  21. 

[87] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

fact  that  such  sentiments  were  echoed  and  re-echoed  about 
the  Halls  of  Congress,  the  Republican  party  as  a  whole  stead 
fastly  adhered  to  its  policy  of  slavery  restriction.  Soon  after 
this  contest  was  settled  by  the  election  of  a  compromise  can 
didate  as  Speaker  and  the  House  was  organized,  Mr.  Jeffer 
son  Davis  introduced  in  the  Senate  February  2,  1860,  a  set  of 
resolutions  setting  forth  the  contentions  of  the  South  as  fol 
lows  :  "First,  that  in  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
the  states  acted  severally  and  free,  as  independent  sovereign 
ties  delegating  a  portion  of  their  power  to  be  exercised  by  the 
Federal  Government  for  the  increased  security  of  each 
against  dangers,  domestic  as  well  as  foreign,  and  that  any 
intermeddling  by  any  one  or  more  of  the  states,  or  by  a 
combination  of  their  citizens  with  the  domestic  institutions 
of  the  others  on  any  pretext,  whether  political  or  religious, 
with  a  view  to  their  disturbance  or  subversion  is  a  violation 
of  the  Constitution ;  second,  that  Negro  slavery  as  it  exists  in 
fifteen  states  of  this  Union  composes  an  important  portion 
of  their  domestic  institutions  *  *  *  *  and  that  no  change 
of  feeling  on  the  part  of  non-slave  holding  states  can  justify 
them  or  their  citizens  in  any  systematic  attack  with  a  view 
to  its  overthrow ;  fourth,  that  neither  Congress  nor  a  terri 
torial  legislature,  whether  by  direct  legislation  or  legislation 
of  an  indirect  or  unfriendly  nature,  possesses  power  to  im 
pair  the  constitutional  right  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States  to  take  his  slave  property  into  the  common  territories, 
but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  protect  them ; 
fifth,  that  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  for  the  rendition 
of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor,  without  the  adoption  of 
which  the  Union  could  not  have  been  formed,  and  the  laws  of 
1793  and  1850  are  similar  which  were  enacted  to  secure  its 
execution,  bear  the  impress  of  seventy  years'  sanction  of  the 
highest  judicial  authority  *  *  *  *  and  the  acts  of  state 
legislatures  to  defeat  it,  are  hostile  in  character  *  *  *  * 
and  will  lead  the  injured  states  by  such  breach  of  the  compact 
to  exercise  their  judgment  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  redress." 
It  would  be  hard  to  find  a  set  of  resolutions  more  expres 
sive  of  the  principles  of  any  party  than  these,  or  in  truth,  a 

[88] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

more  explicit  statement  of  any  case.  They  defend  slavery 
and  the  slave  laws,  uphold  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights,  spurn 
Squatter  Sovereignty  and  broadly  hint  at  secession.  These 
were  the  cardinal  principles  for  which  the  South  contended 
and  stubbornly  struggled  to  the  last.  Senator  Clark,  of  New 
Hampshire,  addressing  himself  to  these  resolutions  on  Feb 
ruary  20,  1860,  earnestly  defended  the  powers  of  Congress  to 
legislate  with  regard  to  the  territories  and  to  slavery.  He 
declared  that  the  greed  of  the  Democracy  had  brought  forth 
the  Republican  party  which  stigmatized  slavery  as  "a  relic  of 
barbarism"  which  it  intended  to  confine  to  its  present  limits 
where  it  shall  become  unprofitable  and  be  smothered  out.  "To 
prevent  the  extension  of  slavery  in  the  territories,"  said  he, 
"is  the  cardinal  object  of  the  Republican  party,  but  in  saying 
this  I  deny  that  it  attempts  or  seeks  to  attempt  by  any  action 
of  the  general  government,  to  interfere  with  it  in  the  states 
where  it  exists,  but  they  will  hold  it  up  and  discuss  it  as  a 
moral,  social  and  political  evil."  At  this  time  Senator  Andrew 
Johnson  was  addressing  the  Senate  on  Mr.  Mason's  Harper's 
Ferry  resolutions.  Replying  to  Senator  TrumbuH,  who  had 
taken  as  the  text  of  his  speech  the  resolution  in  the  Repub 
lican  platform :  "That  with  our  Republican  fathers,  we  hold 
that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal,  and  that  it  is  the  primary 
object  and  ulterior  design  of  the  government  to  grant  these," 
etc.,  Senator  Johnson  asked:  "Is  there  a  man  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  this  Republic  who  believes  for  one  in 
stant  that  when  Jefferson  penned  these  lines  he  had  in  mind 
the  Negro  population."  Illinois,  Senator  Trumbull's  state,  had 
at  this  time  a  constitution  acknowledging  the  equality  and 
liberty  of  all,  still  it  was  well  known  that  colored  people 
were  proscribed  and  discriminated  against  in  the  admin 
istration  of  the  laws.  Mr.  Johnson  called  attention  to  this 
fact  and  scored  against  Mr.  Trumbull,  who  was  compelled  to 
acknowledge  that  he  favored  deportation  of  the  freedmen. 
There  was  one  man  in  the  Senate,  however,  who  could  never 
be  budged  from  his  position,  and  that  was  Senator  Sumner. 
While  Senators  Johnson  and  Trumbull  were  battling,  with 
the  latter  on  the  defensive,  Mr.  Sumner  was  preparing  one  of 

[89] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

his  sweeping  speeches  which  he  delivered  a  few  days  later  in 
which  he  held  up  not  only  slavery  but  slave-holders  as  well  to 
the  execration  of  mankind,  declaring  that  "slave-holders  are 
base,  false  and  heedless  of  justice ;  that  there  is  no  vileness 
of  dishonesty,  no  denial  of  human  rights,  that  is  not  plainly 
involved  in  the  support  of  an  institution  which  begins  by 
changing  man,  created  in  the  image  of  God,  into  a  chattel 
and  sweeps  little  children  away  to  the  auction  block."  Thad- 
deus  Stevens,  the  leader  of  the  Republican  forces  in  the 
House,  in  a  speech  in  defense  of  the  powers  of  the  govern 
ment  to  regulate  slavery  in  the  territories,  etc.,  delivered 
about  this  time,  summed  up  the  situation  as  follows :  "The 
right  of  abolition  is  a  question  of  expediency  about  which 
Republicans  differ,  but  whenever  it  can  be  done  safely  and 
justly,  it  is  the  intention  of  the  Republican  party  to  do  it." 
Such  remarks  by  intrepid  leaders  like  Sumner  and  Stevens 
gave  little  assurance  to  the  South  that  the  slavery  question 
would  be  adjusted  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  slave  power. 

It  having  come  to  the  knowledge  of  Congress  that  New 
Mexico,  where  slavery  had  been  prohibited  by  Congress,  had 
passed  numerous  slave  laws,  Mr.  John  A.  Bingham,  on  Feb 
ruary  16,  introduced  in  the  House  a  bill  disapproving  and  de 
claring  void  all  laws  and  acts  or  parts  thereof  passed  by  the 
Legislature  of  New  Mexico  in  any  manner  countenancing  slav 
ery  in  that  territory.  The  passage  of  this  measure,  May  10, 
1860,  by  a  vote  of  97  to  90,  shows  the  strength  of  the  Republi 
cans  in  the  House  at  that  time.  The  situation  in  the  Senate, 
however,  was  far  different ;  that  body  adopted  the  Davis 
resolutions  before  referred  to,  one  by  one,  without  an  amend 
ment  though  every  Republican  voted  in  the  negative. 

There  appears  to  have  been  a  brisk  revival  of  the  African 
slave  trade  just  prior  to  I860.11  At  all  events  it  was  deemed 
necessary  to  pass  a  law  in  May  of  that  year  amending  the  Act 
of  March  3,  1819,  prohibiting  the  slave  trade  and  giving  the 
President  specific  power  and  authority  to  arrange  with  com 
petent  parties  for  the  return  to  Africa  of  such  slaves  as  might 


11.  In  Gaulding's  speech  before  the  Baltimore  Convention  before  referred  to, 
he  spoke  of  their  being  in  the  South  "Africans,  fresh  from  Africa,"  and  de 
scribed  them  as  "the  noblest  Romans  of  them  all." 

[90] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

be  seized  on  ships  engaged  in  the  trade.  It  was  officially  re 
ported  that  a  thousand  Negroes  were  brought  from  Africa  to 
the  coast  of  Florida  in  I86012  and  it  was  this  incident  that  in 
spired  the  introduction  of  the  above-mentioned  measure  for 
the  enforcement  of  which  Congress  appropriated  two  and 
one-half  million  dollars.13  This  was  among  the  last  Acts 
passed  at  this  session  of  Congress  which  soon  afterward  ad 
journed  when  its  members  returned  home  with  hearts  beating 
fast  with  anticipation  while  the  clouds  were  gathering  thick 
and  dark  in  all  our  sky  and  fate  was  forging  bolts  of  thunder. 

12.  Vide  Special  message  of  President  Buchanan,  May  21,  I860 

13.  Globe  First  Session  Thirty  sixth  Congress,  p,  2640. 


[91] 


CHAPTER  X 


The  First  Republican  House  of  Representatives — Members  Confused 
and  Excited — Lincoln  Assumes  Reins — His  Inaugural  Address 
— Opposed  to  Interference  with  Slavery — Sketch  of  Lincoln's 
Public  Career  up  to  the  Time  of  His  Election — Not  an  Aboli 
tionist — Secession  and  Beginning  of  the  Civil  War. 

In  1860  the  Republicans  elected  all  their  candidates  because 
the  opponents  of  slavery  had  at  last  found  an  organization 
through  which  they  could  effectively  act  and  because  the 
slave  power  being  as  thoroughly  tired  of  compromises  and 
as  much  disgusted  with  make-shifts  as  anybody  else,  did  not 
care.  Indeed,  the  South,  instead  of  opposing  the  candidates  of 
the  Republican  party,  deemed  that  the  time  and  energy  could 
be  more  profitably  spent  in  making  final  preparation  for  leav 
ing  the  Union.  The  slavery  question,  however,  was  about  the 
only  issue  before  the  people  at  this  election.  Well-defined, 
clear-cut  and  stripped  of  qualifications,  the  question  was : 
Shall  slave-holders  be  permitted  to  carry  their  institution  of 
slavery  into  territory  where  the  laws  of  the  nation  had  ex 
pressly  prohibited  it.  The  time  for  abstract  lectures  and 
learned  dissertations  by  the  select  few  had  past.  The  issue 
had  been  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms  and  simplest  form  where 
a  catagorical  answer  had  to  be  given  by  the  common  people. 
And  on  this  issue  the  Republicans  were  given  a  majority  in 
both  Houses  of  Congress  and  put  in  control  of  the  govern 
ment,  but  the  possession  of  this  power  at  first  had  the  effect 
of  frightening  rather  than  elating  them.  And  when  we  con 
sider  the  responsibility  thus  suddenly  thrust  upon  a  lot  of 
men,  a  large  majority  of  whom  were  new  and  inexperienced 
in  matters  of  legislation  and  who  were  immediately  called 
upon  to  face  the  gravest  legislative  problems  of  their  age,  it 
can  be  readily  understood  how  fearfully  confused  they  were 
and  how  much  confused  they  were  in  their  fear.  But  this 
congressional  confusion  was  only  a  reflection  of  the  general 
confusion  and  turmoil  throughout  the  country,  for  everybody 

[92] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

felt  and  knew  that  a  great  crisis  impended.  Public  spirit  was 
at  fever  heat  and  those  who  had  not  been  entrusted  with  au 
thority  as  individuals  or  as  organizations,  assumed  to  advise 
the  constituted  authorities.  Foremost  among  this  latter  class 
might  be  mentioned  the  Peace  Convention,  hastily  called 
together  by  pacifists  to  consider  ways  and  means  of  prevent 
ing  civil  war.  This  conclave  was  attended  by  delegates  from 
twenty-one  states,  who  formulated  their  whereases  and  re 
solves  in  the  usual  manner,  to  the  usual  extent  and  with  the 
usual  result  of  accomplishing  nothing  else.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  were  innumerable  propositions  presented  before 
Congress.  There  were  proposals  to  amend  the  Constitution 
so  as  to  provide  for  an  indelible  Missouri  line  of  36  degrees 
and  30  minutes ;  resolutions  to  the  effect  that  Congress  had 
power  to  legislate  on  the  slavery  question  in  regard  to  the 
territories  and  resolutions  declaring  that  there  was  no  such 
power;  in  short,  there  was  a  regular  jumble  or  hotch-potch 
of  resolutions.  There  was  even  a  formal  proposition  demand 
ing  that  the  Federal  Government  should  recognize  and  pro 
tect  slavery  in  all  the  territories  and  in  the  states  where  it 
then  existed.  All  of  these  matters  were  referred  in  the 
Senate  to  a  special  committee  of  thirteen  and  in  the  House 
to  a  similar  committee  of  thirty-three.  To  these  committees 
was  also  referred  the  report  of  the  Peace  Convention  just 
mentioned.  After  much  labor  on  the  part  of  these  committees 
a  proposition  was  favorably  reported  which,  among  other 
things,  provided  as  follows :  That  the  Constitution:  should  be 
amended  so  as  to  provide  for  the  perpetuation  of  slavery 
south  of  the  Missouri  line ;  that  no  territory  should  be  ac 
quired  without  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  the  Senators 
from  the  slave  and  free  states;  that  Congress  should  be 
denied  the  power  to  legislate  on  the  question  of  slavery;  that 
the  Federal  Government  should  pay  for  all  slaves  that  might 
escape  into  states  whose  citizens  might  refuse  to  assist  in  ap 
prehending  and  returning  such  fugitives.  Although  the  Re 
publicans  were  in  complete  control  of  legislation,  the  Sena 
tors  and  Representatives  from  the  South  had  not  as  yet  re 
signed  their  seats,  though  their  participation  in  these  debates 

[93] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

was  with  a  stolid  indifference  as  to  the  result.  The  South  had 
plainly  gone  too  far  in  the  direction  of  secession  to  recede; 
still  it  was  desired  that  it  should  seem  that  they  were  being 
driven  out  of  the  Union.  In  the  meantime  the  House  Commit 
tee  of  thirty-three  reported  another  bill  providing  that  any 
amendment  looking  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  emanating  from 
a  slave  state  should  require  for  its  adoption  the  consent  of 
every  state  in  the  Union.  This  bill  did  not  pass,  nor  did  the 
other  one  first  mentioned,  but  it  did  give  additional  impetus 
to  the  secession  movement.  Matters  outside  of  Congress 
were  in  a  worse  shape,  if  such  a  thing  were  possible,  than 
they  were  in  Congress.  Foreign  capital,  fearful  and  sensitive 
as  capital  always  is,  was  being  withdrawn,  indicating  a  lack 
of  confidence  abroad,  while  domestic  business  was  par 
alyzed.  Merchants  and  traders  in  the  North  were  divided; 
some  of  them  looked  upon  Lincoln  much  as  the  mob  of  re 
spectable  citizens  had  done  in  the  case  of  Garrison,  in  1833, 
as  the  cause  of  the  dull  markets  and  general  stagnation  of 
business,  while  other  merchants  and  practically  all  of  the 
common  people  charged  the  trouble  to  the  rapacity  of 
slavery.  The  South,  in  the  meantime,  had  fully  determined  to 
test  its  right  to  leave  the  Union.  Matters  stood  thus  when 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  Cabinet  assumed  the  reins  of  govern 
ment,  March  4,  1861.  In  his  inaugural  address  Mr.  Lincoln 
labored  hard  to  reassure  the  South  by  the  frankest  disavowal 
of  any  intention  to  disturb  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their 
institutions  as  they  then  were,  but  to  no  purpose.  The  die 
had  been  cast  and  within  a  few  days  Beauregard  was  des 
tined  to  fire  on  Sumter  and  "The  Star  of  the  West"  was  to 
be  put  about  off  Sullivan's  Island  as  she  steamed  down  the 
bay  with  supplies  from  New  York.  Political  affairs  at  once 
became  more  mixed  and  the  character  of  the  adherents  to 
the  government  became  more  complex.  To  the  slavery  re- 
strictionists,  straight-out  Abolitionists  and  the  usual  drift  of 
motley  mugwumps  were  now  added  many  rank  pro-slavery 
War  Democrats.  The  Abolitionists  formed  the  weaknest  ele 
ment  of  this  heterogeneous  aggregation,  and  if  this  fact  is  kept 
in  mind,  together  with  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  was 

[94] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

not  an  Abolitionist,  the  policy  of  the  government  and  the  con 
duct  of  affairs  during  the  early  stages  of  the  war  will  be  more 
readily  understood.  It  will  be  remembered,  too,  that  Mr.  Lin 
coln  was  born  in  a  slave  state  (Kentucky)  and  was  reared  in 
a  border  state  (Illinois)  and  knew  much  of  the  character  and 
temper  of  slave-holders.  Besides  having  had  the  opportunity 
to  observe  the  situation  at  close  range,  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been 
called  upon  more  than  once  to  consider  the  particular  ques 
tion  of  slavery.  In  1849  (January  10)  when  he  was  a  member 
of  the  House,  and  outside  influences  were  being  brought  to 
bear  with  unusual  strength  upon  Congress  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  Mr.  Lincoln  introduced  a 
bill  for  the  enactment  of  a  fugitive  slave  law  to  be  applied  to 
the  District.1  At  Charleston,  111.,  on  September  8,  1858,  dur 
ing  his  struggle  with  Judge  Douglas  for  a  seat  in  the  United 
States  Senate,  Mr.  Lincoln  stated  his  position  in  reply  to 
direct  questions  as  follows :  "I  am  not  nor  never  have  been 
in  favor  of  bringing  about,  in  any  way,  the  social  and  political 
equality  of  the  white  and  black  races.  I  am  not  nor  never 
have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  Negroes,  nor 
of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office ;  *  *  *  there  are  physi 
cal  differences  between  the  white  and  black  races  which  I  be 
lieve  will  forbid  the  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social 
and  political  equality,  and  which,  inasmuch  as  they  can  not  so 
live,  while  they  do  remain  together,  I  am  in  favor  of  having 
the  superior  position  assigned  to  the  white  race."2  That  Mr. 
Lincoln's  opinion  on  these  questions  had  not  materially 
changed  in  1861,  the  following  extract  from  his  first  inaugural 
address  will  tend  to  show.  On  making  his  bow  before  the  na 
tion  on  that  occasion  the  President  said:  "There  is  no  foun 
dation  in  reason  or  cause  for  apprehension.  Indeed,  the  most 
ample  evidence  to  the  contrary  has  all  the  while  existed  and 
has  been  open  to  inspection.  It  is  found  in  nearly  all  of  the 
public  speeches  by  him  who  now  addresses  you.  I  do  but  quote 
from  one  of  these  speeches  when  I  declare  that  I  have  no  pur 
pose  directly  or  indirectly  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of 


1.  Cf.  Whitney's  "Life  on  the  Circuit  With  Lincoln,"  p.  362. 

2.  Whitney,  p.  358;  Richardson's  Executive  Documents,  1861. 

[95] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

slavery  in  the  states  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no 
power  to  do  so ;  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  Those  who 
nominated  and  elected  me  did  so  with  the  full  knowledge  that 
I  have  made  this  and  many  similar  declarations  and  have 
never  recanted  them.  More  than  this,  they  placed  in  the  plat 
form  for  my  acceptance  and  as  a  law  unto  themselves  and  to 
me,  the  clear  and  emphatic  resolution  which  I  now  read:  'Re 
solved  that  the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the  rights  of  the 
states  and  especially  of  each  state,  to  order  and  control  its 
own  domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judgment  ex 
clusively,  is  essential  to  the  balance  of  power  on  which  the 
perfection  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depend,  and 
we  denounce  the  lawless  invasion  by  armed  forces  of  the  soil 
in  any  state  no  matter  on  what  pretext,  as  among  the  gross 
est  crimes/  Now  I  reiterate  these  sentiments,  and  in  doing 
so  I  only  press  upon  the  public  attention  the  most  conclusive 
evidence  of  which  the  case  is  susceptible,  that  the  property, 
peace  and  security  of  no  section  are  to  be  endangered  by  the 
incoming  administration." 

That  Mr.  Lincoln  was  an  anti-slavery  man  no  one  has  any 
reason  to  doubt;  that  he  was  an  Abolitionist,  no  one  has  any 
reason  to  believe ;  that  he  was  a  slavery  restrictionist,  every 
one  knows.  His  whole  life  is  filled  with  incidents  tending  to 
show  that  he  had  no  sympathy  with  slave-holding.  Indeed, 
the  very  fact  that  he  came  or  was  brought  at  an  early  age 
from  the  slave  state  of  Kentucky  to  the  free  state  of  Illinois 
would  tend  to  show  that  his  aversion  to  slavery  was  delib 
erate  ;  but  this  by  no  means  meant  that  he  was  an  Abolition 
ist,  which  meant  to  be  of  that  stripe  of  an  anti-slavery  man 
who  disapproved  of  slavery  not  only  on  moral  and  political 
grounds  but  whose  opposition  to  the  institution  was  active, 
bitter  and  uncompromising  and  who  not  only  hated  slave- 
holding  but  despised  slave-holders  and  held  them  up  to  the 
execration  of  mankind.  With  this  school  of  anti-slavery  men 
Mr.  Lincoln  neither  had  nor  claimed  any  relation.  Nor  did  he 
repudiate  them  in  terms  half  so  severe  as  they  used  in  their 
repudiation  of  him,  if  the  opinion  of  men  like  Wendell  Phil 
lips  and  William  Lloyd  Garrison  may  be  taken  as  a  fair  index 

[96] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

to  the  general  opinion  of  their  associates.3  Perhaps  no  man 
in  history  has  been  more  misunderstood  by  succeeding  gen 
erations  than  Mr.  Lincoln  has  been  in  regard  to  his  attitude 
on  the  question  of  Negro  slavery  in  the  United  States.  Be 
tween  flatterers,  who  have  deliberately  sought  to  suppress 
the  facts  on  the  one  hand,  and  cunning  enemies,  who  have  de 
liberately  sought  to  distort  the  facts  on  the  other  hand  in 
order  to  damn  his  memory  by  making  it  appear  that  he  was 
a  time-serving  hypocrite,  the  student  unacquainted  with  the 
whole  history  of  the  period,  is  likely  to  be  left  in  great  con 
fusion.  There  is  no  more  comparison  to  be  made  between  the 
abolitionism  of  John  Brown  and  Abraham  Lincoln  than  be 
tween  the  religion  of  Bob  Ingersoll  and  Savonarolla.  Nor  is 
this  any  necessary  discredit  to  either  the  head  or  the  heart  of 
Mr.  Lincoln,  certainly  not  to  his  head  for  the  reason  that  had 
he  been  an  Abolitionist,  or  even  been  suspected  of  being 
one,  he  never  would  have  been  President  of  these  United 
States  and  consequently  never  would  have  had  the  oppor 
tunity  of  signing  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  which  he 
was  virtually  forced  to  do  under  circumstances  over  which  he 
himself  acknowledged  he  had  no  control.  And  had  he  issued 
this  famous  proclamation  at  an  earlier  time  or  under  different 
circumstances,  he  would  have  failed  as  miserably  as  did  John 
Brown  at  Harper's  Ferry.  Slave-holders  had  to  be  maddened 
like  unto  those  whom  the  "gods  would  destroy;"  they  had  to 
be  smitten  with  blindness  so  that  they  could  not  see  what  Mr. 
Lincoln  tried  so  hard  to  show  them,  while  the  rest  of  the 
country  had  to  be  taught  that  the  salvation  of  the  Union  was 
of  greater  consequence  than  their  prejudice  against  Negroes 
or  their  utter  indifference  to  the  fate  of  the  slaves  and  the 
nation  had  to  learn  the  deeper  significance  of  the  earnestness 
of  the  southern  people  in  their  endeavors  to  establish  a  sep 
arate  government  with  the  encouragement  of  some  foreign 
countries,  especially  England.  The  question  of  freeing  the 
slaves  naturally  became  involved  during  the  progress  of  the 
war  just  as  any  other  matter  as  to  how  the  enemy  might  be 
more  effectively  harrassed  by  the  destruction  of  his  property 

3.  Austin's  Life  of  Phillips,  p.  233;  also  Life  of  Garrison. 

[97] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

or  commerce.  The  slaves  were  not  only  property  but  prop 
erty  of  the  most  valuable  and  useful  type  in  the  hands  of  the 
enemy.  They  could  not  only  raise  and  protect  supplies  but 
were  the  actual  source  of  supplies  that  maintained  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  Union  army.  And  however  much  Mr.  Lincoln 
might  have  regretted  having  to  involve  the  slaves,  especially 
in  view  of  his  promise  and  the  promise  of  his  party  to  main 
tain  the  Union^  and  administer  the  government  without  dis 
turbing  slavery,  he  could  no  more  avoid  the  necessity  of  free 
ing  the  slaves  than  he  could  the  blockading  of  southern  ports. 
His  duty  as  the  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Federal  army 
compelled  him  to  take  any  step  calculated  to  weaken  the 
enemy.  Indeed  he  would  have  received  the  condemnation  of 
mankind  and  the  execration  of  history  had  he  failed  in  this 
paramount  duty  to  the  nation  at  this  crisis  when  the  fortunes 
and  the  lives  of  so  many  of  its  citizens  were  being  exposed 
for  its  salvation  from  the  threatened  dissolution.  There  is  no 
form  of  cruelty,  barbarity  and  heedless  destruction  of  all  that 
is  held  sacred  by  man  that  is  not  involved  in  war;  nor  is  there 
any  greater  evil  with  the  possible  exception  of  slavery  which 
always  begins,  continues  and  has  its  being  in  warfare  and  has, 
therefore,  been  aptly  described  as  the  sum  of  all  evils.  Slavery 
always  begins  in  war  and  usually  ends  as  it  begins.  The 
province  of  a  general  is  to  conquer  by  destroying  the  enemy 
and  his  property  and  it  matters  little  whether  the  property 
destroyed  is  a  ship  at  sea  freighted  with  corn  intended  to  feed 
the  enemy's  soldiers  or  slaves  in  the  field  hoeing  cotton  in 
tended  to  clothe  them.  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  start  out  with  any 
deliberate  purpose  of  freeing  the  slaves  and  in  this  regard  he 
deserves  neither  the  unsparing  condemnation  of  the  South 
nor  the  extravagant  plaudits  of  anybody  else.  Fate  joined  the 
good  of  the  slaves  with  the  good  of  the  country  in  a  "union, 
one  and  inseparable"  and  Mr.  Lincoln  was  given  a  great  op 
portunity  which  he  used  like  a  great  man  and  a  great  states 
man. 


[98] 


CHAPTER  XI 


The  Early  Conduct  of  the  War — Union  Army  Busy  Catching  Fugi 
tive  Slaves — General  Butler's  Early  Start  and  Repentance — 
Lincoln's  Administration  Opposed  to  Freeing  Slaves — General 
Fremont  Relieved  of  His  Command  Because  of  His  Attempt 
to  Free  Slaves — General  Hunter  in  South  Carolina — The  Ad 
ministration  Begins  to  Recede — Opposition  to  Negro  Soldiers 
—The  Draft  Riots— Heroic  Treatment  for  Rebellion— The  Be 
ginning  of  Abolition — The  Confiscation  Act — Lincoln  Offers 
Payment  for  Emancipated  Slaves  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
— Efforts  to  Evade  Emancipation  Law  in  District  of  Columbia 
— Clamor  for  General  Emancipation  Act — Greeley's  Famous 
Letter  to  Lincoln  and  Lincoln's  Reply — The  Preliminary  Eman 
cipation  Proclamation. 

Although  the  war  was  prosecuted  in  earnest  from  the  be 
ginning  by  the  South,  the  Federal  Government  for  several 
months  affected  to  regard  the  matter  as  being  of  slight  im 
portance.  The  enthusiastic  vigor  of  the  Confederate  soldiers 
resulted  in  victory  after  victory  for  their  arms  until  the  very 
capitol  of  the  nation  was  about  to  fall  into  their  hands  before 
the  Washington  Government  came  to  realize  that  the  contest 
was  war  and  the  Union  soldiers  began  to  appreciate  the  fact 
that  military  glory  was  involved  in  success  on  their  part.  In 
deed,  during  the  first  eighteen  months  of  the  war  the  Federal 
army  seems  to  have  devoted  more  time  to  the  apprehension 
and  return  of  fugitive  slaves  than  to  any  serious  contention 
with  the  enemy.  Conscious  of  having  wronged  the  slaves  and 
feeling,  doubtless,  some  weak  fear  of  retribution,  the  slave 
holders  and  their  sympathizers  entertained  grave  fears  of  a 
servile  uprising.  They  remembered  poor  old  Nat  Turner  and 
how  he  foolishly  moved  against  the  whole  nation,  although 
the  nation  according  to  his  knowledge  and  conception  con 
sisted  only  of  the  oppressors  by  whom  he  was  surrounded  on 
the  Virginia  farm  where  he  lived,  almost  single-handed  in  his 
effort,  in  his  vain  hope,  nay,  in  his  madness,  to  free  his  people. 
They  remembered  Denmark  Vesey  who  did  practically  the 
same  thing  in  South  Carolina.  That  these  two  efforts  at  a 

[99] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

servile  insurrection  had  proved  to  be  mere  madness,  in  view 
of  the  ample  and  ready  arms  in  hand  or  at  the  immediate  dis 
posal  of  the  master  class,  did  not  prove,  now  that  these 
masters  were  absent  with  their  arms,  that  the  slaves  even 
without  any  organization  or  leader,  might  not  rise  up  and 
smite  the  women  and  children  of  their  masters.  Pictures  of 
Toussaint  L'Ouverture  and  San  Domingo,  too,  naturally  arose 
vividly  before  the  eyes  of  southern  white  men  at  this  time. 
But  to  the  surprise  of  all,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  world 
and  to  their  own  everlasting  credit  the  Negroes  to  a  man 
proved  themselves  to  be  far  too  noble  even  to  hint  at  taking 
advantage  of  these  women  and  children.  And  during  these 
trying  days  many  a  strong  slave  man  slept  at  the  bed  cham 
ber  door  of  his  mistress  in  order  to  allay  her  fears.  Some 
savage  natures,  not  being  able  to  understand  this  true  no 
bility  might  be  inclined  to  ascribe  this  sort  of  behavior  on  the 
part  of  the  slaves  to  cowardice,  but  no  one  who  knows  any 
thing  about  Fort  Wagner,  Fort  Pillow,  Fisher's  Hill  and  a 
hundred  other  battlefields  made  memorable  by  the  valor  of 
Negro  soldiers  during  this  same  war,  would  dare  call  Negroes 
cowardly.  So  far  as  the  slaves  were  concerned  at  this  crisis, 
they  left  retribution  where  it  belonged  and  vengeance  to  the 
Lord.  He  repaid.  General  Butler,  however,  on  his  way  South, 
felt  called  upon  to  assure  the  Governor  of  Maryland  that  he, 
with  his  troops,  "would  put  down  anything  like  an  insurrec 
tion  on  the  part  of  the  slaves  in  that  state,"  and  that  "any  call 
by  the  Governor  for  such  purpose  would  be  promptly  complied 
with  by  the  men  of  Massachusetts."1  General  Butler's  warm 
enthusiasm  in  that  direction,  however,  was  destined  to  be  short 
lived,  for  he  not  only  experienced  a  change  of  heart  by  the 
time  he  reached  Fortress  Monroe,  but  discovered  that  he  had 
mistaken  the  temper  both  of  the  southern  people  and  of  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  as  well.  Governor  Andrews,  of 
Massachusetts,  took  the  General  sharply  to  task  for  his  indis 
cretion  ;  but  Butler  set  himself  right  with  the  whole  North 
when  a  short  while  later  he  rebuffed  Colonel  Mallory  who 
wished  to  enter  the  Union  lines  in  search  of  escaped  slaves 


1.  Giddings,  p.  464. 

[100] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

by  coolly  informing  him  that  any  Negroes  coming  inside  the 
Union  lines  would  be  held  as  contraband  of  war.  And  by  the 
time  General  Butler  reached  New  Orleans  he  found  it  neces 
sary  to  incline  about  as  far  in  the  other  direction  in  order  to 
maintain  himself.  The  women  of  New  Orleans  are  said  to 
have  been  so  enraged  on  account  of  the  presence  of  Federal 
troops  that  they  not  only  railed  at  them  most  violently  but 
even  went  so  far  as  to  spit  upon  them.  At  all  events  the  situa 
tion  became  so  uncomfortable  for  Butler  and  his  men  that  the 
General  gave  orders  permitting  his  men  to  treat  any  woman 
as  lude  who  might  insult  them.2  General  Butler  later  became 
one  of  the  most  zealous  supporters  of  Negro  soldiery  and  Ne 
gro  citizenship.  While  Butler's  eagerness  to  offer  the  Gover 
nor  of  Maryland  the  services  of  his  troops,  etc.,  may  have  dis 
pleased  Governor  Andrews,  it  did  not  displease  the  Washing 
ton  administration,  which  at  the  time  was  making  every 
effort  to  dissuade  the  South  from  a  continuance  of  the  war 
as  well  as  to  demonstrate  to  the  world  that  the  government 
was  giving  no  just  cause  for  the  rebellion.  And  for  fear  that 
it  might  be  thought  abroad  that  the  war  was  being  prosecuted 
for  the  purpose  of  depriving  the  South  of  its  slaves,  United 
States  Ministers  at  foreign  Courts  were  instructed  to  deny 
that  such  was  the  intention.  Even  as  late  as  April  22,  1863, 
Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State,  deemed  it  wise  and  politic 
to  give  instructions  to  Mr.  Dayton,  our  Minister  to  France, 
to  the  effect  "that  the  condition  of  slavery  in  the  several 
states  will  remain  just  the  same  whether  it  (the  rebellion) 
succeeded  or  failed  *  *  *  *  The  right  of  the  states  and 
the  condition  of  every  human  being  in  them  will  remain  sub 
ject  to  the  same  laws  and  forms  of  administration."3  He  even 
went  so  far  as  to  declare  that  "Republicanism  ought  to  dis 
appear  before  questions  touching  the  Union." 

General  McClellan,  who  was  in  command  of  the  Union 
army  in  Ohio  and  the  western  part  of  Virginia,  announced 
himself  as  being  ready  "to  crush  anything"  in  the  nature  of  a 
servile  insurrection  in  his  territory. 


2.  Giddings,    p.    467. 

3.  Amcr.  Conflict  II,  p.  237;  Giddings,  p.  465. 


[101] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Unlike  Generals  Butler  and  McClellan,  General  Fremont, 
who  was  in  charge  of  the  Union  forces  in  Missouri  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  war,  undertook  to  liberate  the  slaves  of  the 
rebels  in  his  territory  by  proclamation  from  his  camp.  Mr. 
Lincoln  promptly  disapproved  of  General  Fremont's  action 
and  ordered  him  to  withdraw  his  order,  and  being  unable  to 
get  him  into  line  with  the  administration  policy  on  the  ques 
tion,  General  Fremont  was  relieved  of  his  command.4  In  his 
letter  to  General  Fremont,  touching  the  matter,  the  President 
stated  that  such  action  on  the  part  of  army,  officers  was  not 
only  unwarranted  but  against  the  spirit  of  an  Act  of  Con 
gress  relative  to  the  conduct  of  the  war.5  Colonel  D.  R.  An 
thony  was  relieved  of  his  command  by  the  President  for  what 
would  seem  to  have  been  a  much  less  grave  offence.  Colonel 
Anthony  had  been  so  much  annoyed  by  slave  hunters  prowling 
about  his  camp  in  search  of  fugitives  that  he  issued  an  order 
forbidding  slave-holders  or  their  agents  to  enter  within  the 
lines  of  his  camp  for  the  purpose  of  hunting  slaves.  This  order 
cost  Colonel  Anthony  his  commission. 

The  President  was  bitterly  opposed  to  fighting  the  rebellion 
through  any  interference  with  slavery  and  did  all  he  could  to 
dissuade  both  the  members  of  his  Cabinet  and  the  officers  of 
the  Union  army  from  such  a  course.6  When  Halleck,  who 
succeeded  Fremont,  issued  his  famous  Order  No.  3  forbidding 
Negroes  to  enter  the  lines  of  his  command  because  they 
"would  carry  important  information  to  the  enemy"  he  evi 
dently  pleased  the  President,  as  did  also  Marshall  Dent,  when 
he  ordered  his  men  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  to  catch  and  flog  any 
colored  person  caught  within  the  lines  of  their  camp  after 
dark.  Sundry  captures  of  this  sort  are  said  to  have  furnished 
rare  sport  to  the  soldiers  under  Dent  while  innocent  colored 
persons  were  being  taught  to  eschew  the  Union  camp. 

When  General  David  Hunter  arrived  at  Hilton  Head,  S.  C, 
he  found  that  a  large  number  of  colored  people,  whose  former 
owners  had  fled  on  his  approach,  had  gathered  there  from 


4.  Amer.  Conflict  II,  pp.  585,  593. 

5.  Ibid,  238. 

<.  Brackett's  Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  300;   also  Whitney,  p.  360. 


[102] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

various  sections  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  He  not  only 
told  these  people  that  they  were  free  but  put  them  to  work 
and  began  to  make  soldiers  of  such  as  were  fit.  News  of  this 
having  reached  Mr.  Lincoln,  he  promptly  issued  a  manifesto 
by  which  he  hoped  to  put  a  certain  and  speedy  end  to  at 
tempts  at  emancipation  by  army  officers.  The  tide  of  public 
sentiment  in  the  direction  of  emancipation,  however,  was  too 
strong  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  stem;  he  had  to  yield  or  lose  con 
trol  of  the  whole  situation.  Even  before  the  action  of  Hun 
ter  at  Hilton  Head,  a  general  order  had  been  issued  (October 
14,  1861)  permitting  the  employment  of  fugitive  slaves  as 
laborers,  etc.,  "coupled  with  the  understanding  and  public 
purpose  that  the  master  should  be  paid  for  the  services  of 
such  slaves  who  should  become  thus  employed,"  and  it  was 
also  "especially  provided  that  this  shall  not  be  taken  to  mean 
any  general  employment  of  Negroes  in  the  military  service." 
The  Confederacy,  however,  had  not  hesitated  about  employ 
ing  Negroes  in  its  army ;  and  it  was  doubtless  this  fact  that 
caused  the  Lincoln  administration  to  issue  the  general  order 
referred  to.  In  order  to  check  the  South  in  its  employment 
of  Negro  soldiers,  Congress  passed  an  Act  on  August  6th, 
1861,  which  provided  that  all  colored  persons  attached  to 
the  Confederate  army  who  might  be  captured  should  be  de 
clared  free.  No  one  paid  any  attention  to  this  act,  however, 
as  during  this  time  neither  any  Confederates  nor  any  of 
their  attaches  were  captured.  Mr.  Cameron,  Mr.  Lincoln's 
Secretary  of  War,  recommended  an  attack  upon  the  Con 
federacy  through  the  use  of  the  slaves  or  by  declaring  the 
slaves  free  in  the  early  part  of  1861,  but  the  President  spurn 
ed  the  suggestion  and  struck  it  out  of  Mr.  Cameron's  report.7 
The  problem  was  a  puzzling  one  for  the  Lincoln  adminis 
tration  which  was  trying  "to  run  with  the  hare  and  hold  with 
the  hounds."  Mr.  Lincoln's  Congress  had  passed  laws  intend 
ed  to  prevent  the  slaves  from  joining  their  masters  in  the 

7.  Amer.  Conflict  II,  p.  242.  Large  gangs  of  slaves  were  put  to  work  on  Con 
federate  redoubts  three  months  before  the  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter.  Free 
Negroes  were  employed  at  Charleston,  Lynchburg,  Memphis  and  Norfolk  in  a 
like  capacity  in  1861.  A  regiment  of  1400  Negroes  having  been  organized,  was 
reviewed  by  the  Governor  of  Louisiana  about  this  period  and  in  1861  (June) 
Tennessee  passed  an  Act  for  drafting  Negroes  into  service  of  the  Confederacy. 
(See  Long's  Hist.  Rep.  Party,  p.  69.) 

[103] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

field,  which  he  plainly  had  no  power  to  enforce,  and  in  addi 
tion  to  this,  he  had  ordered  his  generals  and  commanders 
to  throw  every  possible  obstacle  in  the  way  of  slaves  escap 
ing  from  the  South.  In  order  to  refute  the  charge  that  it 
was  "an  Abolitionist  war,  prosecuted  and  sustained  by  the 
Black  Republicans,"  the  Lincoln  administration  made  every 
effort  to  teach  the  colored  people  that  they  could  hope  for 
no  benefit  from  the  success  of  the  Union  arms ;  and  it  was 
for  this  reason  that  Mr.  Lincoln  opposed  the  employment  of 
Negroes  in  the  Union  service  in  any  capacity,  though  col 
ored  men  had  been  employed  in  all  other  wars  in  which  the 
country  ever  engaged.  His  cabinet  was  a  unit  for  the  em 
ployment  of  Negroes  as  soldiers  as  early  as  July,  1862,  but 
the  President  forbade  it,9  and  positively  refused  to  coun 
tenance  such  a  move  until  the  20th  of  January,  1863.  Mr. 
Lincoln's  opposition  to  the  employment  of  colored  men  as 
soldiers  was  based  upon  two  grounds :  First,  he  pretended 
to  have  had  no  faith  in  their  valour  notwithstanding  their 
previous  record  as  soldiers  in  the  wars  with  England  and 
Mexico.  There  is  room  for  some  doubt  as  to  Mr.  Lincoln's 
sincerity  in  standing  on  this  point ;  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
he  had  widely  published  his  intention  to  support  slavery  and 
his  consistent  action  in  this  regard  up  to  that  time,  one  feel 
ing  the  condemning  responsibility  for  such  a  state  of  affairs 
might  well  doubt  whether  the  Negroes  could  be  safely  trust 
ed  to  support  the  Union ;  and  Mr.  Lincoln  had  good  reason 
for  asking,  "What  assurance  have  we  that  they  will  fight 
on  our  side?"  "Giving  them  (Negroes)  arms,"  continued 
he,  "would  be  equivalent  to  putting  them  at  the  disposal  of 
the  enemy  and  we  have  no  more  arms  than  we  need  for  our 
white  soldiers."10  A  second  reason  for  his  hesitancy  about 
employing  colored  troops  was  more  particularly  well  found 
ed.  It  was  on  the  ground  of  the  rank  prejudice  on  the  part 
of  the  Union  soldiers  against  fighting  with  "niggers"  as 
comrades.  There  is  little  doubt,  but  that  the  Union  soldiers 


8.  Whitney,   p.  362. 

9.  Ibid,  362. 

10.  See   report   of   interview   with   delegation     of     Chicago     ministers,     August, 
1862,  Amer.   Conflict,  II. 


[104] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

would  have  been  deeply  offended  had  colored  soldiers  been 
introduced  into  their  ranks  while  under  the  delusion  that 
they  themselves  were  abundantly  able  to  "wipe  out  the 
Johnnie  Rebs  in  a  jiffy."  At  that  period  the  northern  yeo 
manry  was  very  eager  to  go  to  the  front;  and  when  the 
President  issued  his  second  call  for  volunteers,  about  double 
the  required  number  responded  joyfully:  "We  are  coming 
Father  Abraham,  six  hundred  thousand  strong."  But  after 
these  braves  had  met  the  southerners  in  battle  a  few  times 
and  had  tasted  the  hospitality  of  an  Andersonville  or  Libby 
prison,  they  were  much  less  anxious  to  die  for  their  country ; 
and  when  their  terms  of 'enlistment  expired,  states  had  to 
resort  to  draft  laws  in  order  to  fill  their  quota  of  troops. 
The  engagement  of  colored  men  as  soldiers  now  became  a 
matter  of  serious  consideration  on  the  part  of  the  govern 
ment  and  the  question  of  freeing  the  slaves  became  sub 
ordinate  to  that  of  filling  the  depleted  ranks  of  soldiers  in 
the  Union  army. 

The  necessity  for  drafting  men  was  more  or  less  humiliat 
ing  to  the  Washington  Government ;  besides  encouraging 
the  South,  it  tended  to  publish  to  the  world  the  fact  that 
it  was  taxing  the  Union  to  its  uttermost  to  cope  with  the 
rebellion.  Then,  too,  the  situation  was  facilitating  the  way 
for  the  open  reception  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  into  the 
kingdom  of  nations.  The  dampened  patriotism  of  northern 
men  of  the  soldier  class  was  further  reflected  in  the  anti- 
draft  riots  that  took  place  in  many  northern  cities,  especially 
New  York,  where  the  colored  people,  upon  whom  the  vulgar 
looked  as  the  cause  of  the  war,  were  ferociously  assaulted, 
their  dwellings  demolished  and  the  inmates  in  many  cases, 
murdered.  So  fierce  was  the  outbreak,  that  no  colored  per 
son  dared  to  show  himself  on  the  streets  of  New  York  City 
for  several  days.  This  outside  pressure  was  soon  reflected 
in  Congress,  which  body  now  gave  evidence  of  a  sharp  ad 
vance  on  the  policy  of  the  Lincoln  administration.  Up  to 
this  time  the  Union  army  had  achieved  no  victory  other  than 
such  as  the  apprehension  and  return  of  fugitive  slaves.  In 
its  vain  endeavor  to  maintain  slavery  the  government  was 

[105] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

frittering  away  its  resources  at  the  rate  of  millions  a  day, 
and  the  feeling  of  disgust  on  the  part  of  those  supporting 
the  Union  cause  was  rapidly  giving  way  to  a  feeling  of 
desperation. 

In  the  spring  of  1862  (April  14th)  Senator  Wilson  offered 
a  resolution  directing  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  to 
report  "whether  or  not  further  legislation  was  necessary  in 
order  to  prevent  persons  employed  in  the  military  service 
of  the  United  States  from  aiding  in  the  return  of  persons 
claimed  as  fugitive  slaves,  and  to  punish  them  therefor." 
When  this  came  up  for  consideration,  Senator  Grimes  had 
it  amended  so  as  to  have  the  committee  to  report  at  the 
same  time  "what  reorganization  as  to  the  personnel  of  the 
army  or  otherwise,  was  necessary  to  promote  the  public 
welfare  and  to  bring  the  rebellion  to  a  speedy  close." 

This  was  the  beginning  of  the  heroic  treatment  to  which 
the  rebellion  was  afterwards  subjected.  There  was  a  gen 
eral  shaking  up  among  the  commanders  in  the  army  all 
along  the  line.  Slave  hunting  about  the  Union  camps  ceased 
and  men  like  General  Halleck,  who  could  see  the  danger 
of  important  news  being  carried  to  the  enemy  from  the 
Union  camps  by  Negroes,  but  could  not  conceive  of  how 
the  same  could  be  done  by  rebels  themselves  who  were 
given  free  ingress  and  egress  when  they  claimed  to  be  hunt 
ing  slaves,  were  either  reduced  in  rank  or  sharply  reined  up. 
General  Halleck's  Order  No.  3,  forbidding  Negroes  to  enter 
within  the  Union  lines,  became  quite  famous  as  it  seemed 
to  have  embodied  most  fully  the  timid  and  spineless  policy 
that  characterized  the  Lincoln  administration  of  affairs  dur 
ing  the  first  eighteen  months  of  the  war.  This  order  of 
Halleck  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  Congress  by  Senator 
Sumner  as  early  as  December  4th,  1861,  but  it  was  not  re 
pealed  until  July  17th,  1862,  when  this  and  all  similar  reg 
ulations  were  set  aside  and  their  further  promulgation  pro 
hibited.  In  the  meantime,  propositions,  memorials  and  peti 
tions  for  measures  to  put  a  speedy  end  to  hostilities  were 
poured  in  an  endless  stream  upon  Congress,  and  of  all  the 
clamor,  the  loudest  and  most  persistent  note  demanded  the 

[106] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

emancipation  of  the  slaves.  And  so,  on  December  5th,  1861, 
Senator  Trumbull  introduced  a  bill  providing  for  the  aboli 
tion  of  slavery,  which  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Com 
mittee  together  with  a  number  of  other  propositions  of  a 
like  nature.  The  committee  finally  reported  a  bill  embodying 
the  emancipation  idea.  This  was  known  as  the  Confiscation 
Bill.  After  it  had  been  debated  in  the  Senate  for  several 
weeks,  it  was  referred,  May  7th,  1862,  to  a  Special  Commit 
tee  ostensibly  for  further  consideration  but  in  reality  to 
gain  time  for  a  further  test  of  public  opinion  before  final 
steps  were  taken  on  the  measure.  The  public  clamorously 
approved  of  the  step  as  being  one  in  the  right  direction.  The 
House  had  also  placed  a  similar  measure  into  the  hands  of 
a  special  committee  of  that  body  which  promptly  reported 
the  measure  subsequently  adopted  by  both  Houses.  After 
providing  for  the  confiscation  of  rebel  property  generally, 
it  provided,  Section  9,  that  "All  slaves  of  persons  who  shall 
hereafter  be  engaged  in  rebellion  against  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  or  who  shall  in  any  way  give  aid  or 
comfort  thereto,  escaping  from  such  persons  and  taking 
refuge  within  the  lines  of  the  army;  and  all  slaves  captured 
from  such  persons  or  deserted  by  them,  or  coming  into  the 
control  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  all 
slaves  of  persons  found  or  being  within  any  place  occupied 
by  rebel  forces  and  afterwards  captured  by  the  forces  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be  deemed  captures  of  war  and  shall 
be  forever  free  from  servitude  and  not  again  held  as  slaves." 
Section  10  provided  for  the  prohibition  of  "the  capture  and 
return  of  fugitive  slaves  coming  within  the  Union  lines  by 
army  officers."  Section  11  authorized  the  President  "to 
employ  colored  men  in  the  army  in  any  way  he  deemed  best 
for  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion."  Section  12  authorized 
the  President  "to  provide  for  the  deportation  and  coloniza 
tion  of  such  freedmen  as  should  consent  to  leave  the  coun 
try."  This  act  which  was  approved  by  the  President  on 
July  17th,  1862,  was  the  first  radical  step  taken  by  the  Gov 
ernment  in  its  effort  to  suppress  the  rebellion.  This  radi 
calism  in  Congress,  however,  was  but  a  faint  reflection  of 

[107] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  general  discontent  on  the  outside  on  account  of  the  con 
duct  of  the  war.  The  press  became  violent  in  its  strictures 
upon  both  President  and  Congress ;  army  officers  were  open 
ly  charged  with  cowardice  or  inefficiency ;  confidence  in  the 
government's  power  to  suppress  the  rebellion  from  the  first 
affected  to  have  been  lacking  abroad,  began  to  wane  at 
home ;  those  of  the  soldier  class  who  were  at  first  inclined 
to  regard  "the  wiping  out  of  the  Johnnies"  as  a  picnic,  were 
now  either  silent  and  down-in-the-mouth  or  bitterly  charg 
ing  their  disappointment  to  the  malfeasance  or  misfeasance 
of  those  in  command  of  the  Federal  troops.  In  the  mean 
time,  the  people  of  the  South  were  using  with  telling  effect 
the  anti-Negro  riots  in  the  North  and  the  harsh  treatment 
to  which  Negroes  had  been  subjected  by  the  Union  soldiers 
in  their  endeavors  to  prove  to  the  slaves  that  their  masters 
were  their  best  friends  and  that  success  of  the  Federal  arms 
held  no  hope  for  them.  Then,  too,  there  was  beginning  to 
be  talk  of  withholding  supplies  for  the  army11  by  many  who 
had  been  the  most  enthusiastic  supporters  of  the  Union 
cause,  unless  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  associates  should  become 
more  aggressive  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  Thus  press 
ed  on  all  sides,  Mr.  Lincoln  transmitted  to  Congress,  March 
6,  1862,  a  special  message12  in  which  he  recommended  the 
adoption  of  the  following:  "Resolved,  That  the  United 
States  ought  to  co-operate  with  any  state  which  may  adopt 
a  plan  for  the  general  abolition  of  slavery,  giving  such  state 
pecuniary  aid  to  be  used  by  it  in  its  discretion  to  compensate 
the  inconvenience,  public  and  private,  produced  by  such 
change  of  system."  In  the  special  message  just  referred  to, 
the  President  plainly  intimated  that  neither  he  nor  Congress 
had  any  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  where  it  then  exist 
ed;  and  in  discussing  the  effect  of  the  resolution  he  desired 
Congress  to  pass  he  said:  "It  is  proposed  as  a  matter  of 
perfect  freedom  with  them"  (meaning  the  slave  states).  Con 
gress  promptly  adopted  the  resolution  as  above  set  forth 
and  the  President  approved  it  April  10th,  1862.  The  South, 


11.  Whitney,  p.  362. 
12.  Richardson's    Ex.    Doc.,    1862. 


[108] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

however,  had  been  too  much  encouraged  by  its  numerous 
victories  on  the  battle  field  and  the  growing  coolness  on  the 
part  of  northern  supporters  of  the  Lincoln  administration 
to  pay  any  attention  whatever  to  such  overtures. 

Mr.  Lincoln  had  a  most  profound  belief  in  the  impossi 
bility  of  the  white  and  colored  races  living  together  on  terms 
of  civil  and  political  equality ;  and  it  was  this  fact  more 
than  anything  else,  perhaps,  that  made  him  hesitate  about 
using  his  power  to  forward  the  cause  of  emancipation,  espe 
cially  if  the  idea  of  emancipation  was  uncoupled  with  that 
of  deportation. 

On  December  16th,  1861,  Senator  Wilson  introduced  the 
bill  by  which  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  was  abolish 
ed;  when  this  came  up  for  consideration,  March  12th,  1862, 
Mr.  Garrett  Davis  of  Kentucky,  seeing  that  it  was  destined 
to  pass,  endeavored  to  have  it  so  amended  as  to  provide 
an  appropriation  of  an  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  the  com 
pulsory  deportation  of  such  Negroes.  The  idea  of  compul 
sory  deportation  did  not  carry,  though  an  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  Doolittle  of  Wisconsin,  providing  for  the  appropria 
tion  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  aid  the  American 
Colonization  Society  in  deporting  and  colonizing  such  free 
Negroes  as  were  willing  to  leave  the  country,  was  adopted. 
In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  the  bill  provided  for  paying 
loyal  owners  in  the  District  of  Columbia  for  loss  of  their 
slaves.  In  his  message  to  Congress  announcing  his  approval 
of  this  bill  (April  16th,  1862),  the  President  expressed  him 
self  as  having  been  especially  pleased  to  note  that  it  "rec 
ognized  both  deportation  and  compensation."  Soon  after 
this,  Mr.  E.  H.  Rollins,  Republican,  from  New  Hampshire, 
introduced  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  all  the  "Black  Laws"  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  which  was  passed  and  duly  approved 
May  21st,  1862.13 

When  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia  was 
broken  up,  the  market  was  moved  to  Alexandria,  Va.,  al 
ready  known  as  the  most  choice  slave  market  in  the  country, 


13.  This    bill    also   provided    that    ten    per   cent,   of    the    taxes    paid    by    colored 
people  of  the  District  should  be  devoted  to  the  education  of  their  children. 


[109] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

and  slave  holders  generally  began  to  ship  their  slaves  deeper 
within  the  lines  of  the  Confederacy.  This  transferring  move 
ment  became  so  lively,  Senator  Sumner  induced  Congress 
to  pass  a  resolution  requiring  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  furnish  Congress  with  a  list  of  slave  holders  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia,  together  with  a  list  of  their  slaves,  and 
steps  were  accordingly  taken  to  prevent  the  further  evasion 
of  the  Emancipation  Act.  This  legislation  was  supplemented 
by  an  act  approved  July  12th,  1862,  which  provided  that 
any  colored  person  coming  into  the  District  of  Columbia 
under  any  pretenses  or  circumstances,  whether  as  an  em 
ployee  or  otherwise,  should  be  free. 

While  the  public  endorsed  and  applauded  such  legislation 
as  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
they  did  not  for  a  moment  cease  their  clamor  for  a  general 
emancipation  act  as  a  war  measure.  And  hardly  a  month 
had  passed  after  these  laws  were  enacted  before  Horace 
Greeley  addressed  an  open  letter  to  the  President,  asking 
him  in  the  name  of  twenty  millions,  to  free  the  slaves.14  This 
letter  made  a  deep  impression  throughout  the  country,  not 
because  of  any  pungency,  for  it  contained  nothing  charac 
teristic  of  the  fulminations  of  a  brilliant  journalist ;  it  was 
like  a  stirring,  thrilling,  ominous,  still  alarm.  Mr.  Lincoln, 
catching  the  spirit  of  the  urgency  of  the  message,  telegraph 
ed  his  reply  which,  together  with  the  letter,  was  published 
far  and  wide.  In  his  reply,  the  President  asserted  that  his 
sole  object  and  aim  was  the  salvation  of  the  Union;  and 
that  whatever  he  should  do  about  the  colored  people  and 
about  slavery,  would  be  done  because  in  his  opinion,  it  would 
help  save  the  Union.  "If  I  could  save  the  Union  with  slav 
ery,  I  would  do  it,"  said  he ;  "if  I  could  save  it  without 
slavery,  I  would  do  it."  Delegation  after  delegation  came  to 
the  White  House  daily  and  almost  hourly,  to  entreat  the 
President  to  declare  the  bondmen  free.  Finally  when  it  ap 
peared  that  whatever  happened,  conditions  could  hardly  be 
come  worse,  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  September  22nd,  1862,  issued 
his  warning,  giving  notice  to  the  South  that  either  slavery 


14.  August  22,  1862— see  American  Conflict  II,  p.  249. 

[110] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

or  the  war  must  cease  by  January  1st,  1863.  Puffed  up  with 
pride,  flushed  with  victory  and  big  with  hope,  the  Confed 
eracy  scorned  the  Lincoln  manifesto.  The  casus  belli  as 
then  viewed  by  the  South  was  no  longer  slavery,  however 
prominent  the  part  played  by  that  question  in  the  beginning. 
Nor  was  the  South  fighting  for  slaves.  The  question  in 
volved  a  principle  which  was  as  old  as  the  government  itself, 
namely,  whether  or  not  the  Confederacy  had  a  right  to  be. 
If  it  had  the  right  of  existence,  it  would  of  course  make  its 
own  laws  and  maintain  such  institutions  as  it  deemed  de 
sirable  ;  if  it  had  no  such  right,  it  could  be  determined  only 
by  the  arbitrament  of  war'  The  question  of  holding  slaves 
was,  therefore,  regarded  by  the  South  as  irrelevant,  so  Mr. 
Lincoln's  threat  fell  flat.  Finally  the  first  of  January,  1863, 
came  around  and  there  was  nothing  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  do 
but  to  issue  his  Emancipation  Proclamation ;  its  effect  upon 
the  spirit  of  the  people  was  magical ;  the  whole  civilized 
world  was  electrified;  and  from  that  hour  the  Union  was 
saved.  Mr.  Lincoln's  private  opinion  of  this  act — the  one 
great  thing  that  he  did  that  will  be  remembered  when  all 
else  is  forgotten — is  set  forth  in  a  letter  to  A.  G.  Hodges  of 
Frankford,  Ky.,  under  date  of  April  4th,  1864.15  Said  he,  "I 
claim  not  to  have  controlled  events  but  that  events  have 
controlled  me."  The  most  ardent  Abolitionist  did  not  expect 
to  see  the  slaves  liberated  by  act  of  Congress ;  there  was 
no  constitutional  warrant  for  such  action.  To  proclaim 
emancipation  as  a  war  measure  was  Mr.  Lincoln's  only  re 
sort  and  a  too  hasty  exercise  of  this  power  would  have  hardly 
been  safe. 


15.    Whitney,  p. 


[Ill] 


CHAPTER  XII 

Lincoln  Again  Offers  Pay  for  Emancipation  of  Slaves — Resolutioms 
in  Congress  Demanding  Unconditional  Emancipation — Presi 
dent  Doubts  Authority  and  Hesitates  to  Issue  Proclamation. 

When  Congress  met  in  December,  1862,  everything  was 
moving  rapidly.  In  fact,  events  were  taking  such  a  sweep 
that  sequence  seemed  wanting  and  all  things  were  apparently 
happening  together.  Prospects  for  a  settlement  of  the  sec 
tional  differences  or  the  cessation  of  hostilities  were  no 
where  visible ;  the  sky  was  still  draped  dark  and  deep  with 
the  smoke  of  belligerent  cannon;  the  only  response  from  the 
Confederacy  to  Lincoln's  threat  of  September  22nd  in  con 
nection  with  the  proposed  freedom  of  the  slaves,  was  a 
challenge  to  battle.  Mr.  Lincoln  clearly  saw  in  this  situa 
tion  that  the  life  of  the  Union  was  now  inextricably  mixed 
with  and  inseparable  from  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves. 
He  also  saw  that  the  status  of  the  freedmen  would  be  the 
subject  of  new  problems  and  determined  to  make  another 
effort  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  Confederates  and  to  convince 
them  to  his  views ;  and  with  such  hope  in  mind,  Mr.  Lincoln 
recommended  to  Congress  the  passage  of  a  bill  providing 
that  any  state  freeing  its  slaves  by  the  year  1900  should 
receive  pay  in  United  States  bonds ;  and  that  the  freedmen 
should  be  deported.1  But  the  President  found  that  in  addi 
tion  to  the  South,  he  now  had  another  stubborn  body  to  deal 
with  in  the  shape  of  Congress  which  had  evinced  a  deter 
mination  to  pursue  a  more  decided  if  not  more  drastic  policy. 
On  the  very  next  day  after  receipt  of  the  President's  mes 
sage  (December  2nd),  Mr.  Elliott  of  Massachusetts  intro 
duced  in  the  House  a  resolution  declaring  it  to  be  "the  duty 
of  the  President  as  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army  to 
emancipate  the  slaves;"  and  at  the  same  time  Mr.  Stevens 


1.  Annual  Message  Dec.  1,  1862. 

[112] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

offered  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  "the  President  be  re 
quested  to  declare  free  all  slaves  in  the  rebel  states."  Both 
of  these  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Commit 
tee.  Simultaneously  with  this  movement  in  the  House,  Sen 
ator  Pomeroy  was  having  referred  to  a  special  committee 
"that  part  of  the  President's  message  which  referred  to 
compensated  emancipation  and  deportation."  Congress  show 
ed  how  widely  it  differed  from  the  President  on  these  ques 
tions  a  few  days  after  this  time  (December  15th),  by  simply 
ignoring  the  bill  introduced  by  Representative  Noell  of  Mis 
souri  providing  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  his  state  on 
condition  that  the  masters  be  paid  in  United  States  Govern 
ment  Bonds.  Missouri  in  common  with  several  other  states 
had  been  given  an  opportunity  such  as  Mr.  Noell  now  sought 
even  as  late  as  July  16th,  1862,  when  Mr.  White,  a  Represen 
tative  from  Indiana,  reported  from  the  House  Special  Com 
mittee  on  Emancipation,  a  bill  providing  for  the  purchase 
of  the  slaves  in  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Tennessee, 
Kentucky  and  Missouri  at  the  rate  of  three  hundred  dollars 
a  piece,  on  condition  that  they  should  be  freed  within  five 
years,  which  bill  carried  an  appropriation  of  one  hundred 
and  eighty  million  dollars  in  Government  bonds  for  paying 
for  the  slaves  and  twenty  million  dollars  for  the  deportation 
of  the  freedmen.  After  the  passage  of  the  Confiscation  Act 
it  soon  became  evident  that  Congress,  whatever  might  be 
the  attitude  of  the  Executive,  was  done  with  trying  to  com 
promise  with  the  South. 

Mr.  Lincoln  had  very  decided  opinions  both  as  to  the 
feasibility  and  as  to  his  duty  and  authority  in  connection 
with  freeing  the  slaves.  Mr.  Julian  declared  that  Mr.  Lin 
coln  was  absolutely  opposed  to  the  emancipation  of  the 
slaves,  and  wanted  it  distinctly  understood  when  his  pre 
liminary  proclamation  was  issued  that  deportation  of  the 
Negroes  was  inseparably  connected  with  the  scheme;  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  at  that  time  pressing  upon  Congress  a 
scheme  of  colonization ;  and  that  it  was  by  no  means  certain 
that  had  he  foreseen  the  failure  of  his  plan  in  this  particular, 

[113] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  Emancipation  Proclamation  would  have  been  issued.2 
Mr.  Whitney3  who  has  been  several  times  quoted  and  who 
knew  Mr.  Lincoln  perhaps,  better  and  more  intimately  than 
most  any  of  his  numerous  biographers,  in  speaking  of  Mr. 
Lincoln's  aversion  to  employing  Negroes  as  soldiers,  de 
clares  that  "while  he  so  reluctantly  acquiesced  in  the  scheme 
of  arming  the  Negroes,  he  was  a  little  earlier  in  time  but 
equally  reluctant  to  free  them ;  and  coupled  with  this  neces 
sity  was  his  design  to  compensate  such  owners  as  would  re 
main  loyal  to  the  Union,  also  to  send  the  Negroes  out  of 
the  country."  Continuing,  Mr.  Whitney  declares  that  the 
"reason  for  his  conception  of  the  policy  of  emancipation  in 
1862,  was  a  belief  that  extremists  at  the  North  would  with 
hold  supplies  from  the  government  unless  he  freed  the 
slaves."  "This  was  threatened,"  says  he,  "in  several  high 
quarters,  both  from  excitable  persons  like  Greeley,  Phillips 
and  Lovejoy,  also  from  imperturbable  leaders  like  Andrews, 
Curtain  and  Raymond4  *  *  *  .  In  this  dire  distress,  the  Presi 
dent,  conscious  that  he  must  make  terms  with  the  radicals, 
held  an  interview  with  border  state  people  on  July  12th, 
1862,  and  implored  them  to  concur  in  his  poilcy  of  emanci 
pation  with  compensation.  But  his  pleading  was  to  deaf 
ears.  The  next  day,  the  President  informed  Seward  and 
Wells,  members  of  his  cabinet,  that  he  must  liberate  the 
slaves — no  other  alternative  was  in  sight.  Still  he  hesitated 
and  implored  the  Almighty  to  avert  a  necessity  for  so  ex 
treme  and  revolutionary  an  act,  using  the  same  words  of 
our  Savior,  "Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from 


2.  Life  of   Hon.   George   W.   Julian.     Julian   was   a   member  of  Congress   and   a 
staunch   Abolitionist. 

3.  Whitney,  p.  362,  etc.    Julian's  "Political  Recollections." 

4.  Governors    of   Mass.,    Penna.,   and    N.   Y.,    respectively. 


[114] 


CHAPTER  XIII 


The  Edict  of  Emancipation — The  Thirteenth  Amendment — Civil 
Rights  in  the  District  of  Columbia — The  Penniless  Freedmen — 
Establishment  of  the  Freedman's  Bureau — The  Death  of 
Lincoln. 

The  slavery  system  had  been  so  disorganized  through  the 
exigencies  of  the  war  that  by  1863  the  fealty  of  the  colored 
people  to  their  masters  was  more  potent  in  maintaining  the 
statu  quo  than  any  fear  of  coercion  on  the  part  of  the  slaves. 
The  rich  plantations  of  the  South  had  been  ruined  and  the 
people  impoverished  through  their  support  of  the  Confed 
eracy.  Thousands  of  slaves  had  already  broken  away  from 
their  chains  and  gone  far  beyond  the  reach  of  patrols  by 
the  first  day  of  January,  1863.  Aside  from  this  situation  in 
the  South,  the  country  at  large  was  by  far  more  interested 
in  the  result  of  battles  that  were  in  constant  progress  than 
in  the  question  as  to  what  was  being  done  concerning  the 
slaves.  President  Lincoln's  final  edict  declaring  the  slaves 
free  in  the  rebellious  states  on  and  after  January  1st,  1863, 
did  not  cause  a  single  ripple  of  excitement  beyond  the  frantic 
jubilation  of  the  freedmen. 

The  first  great  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  Negro  in  Amer 
ica  was  now  past  after  extending  over  a  period  of  two 
hundred  and  forty-four  years  (1619-1863).  In  view  of  the 
light  esteem  in  which  Negroes  were  held,  especially  just 
before  the  war,  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  and  even  by  the  very  man  who  signed  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation,  the  consummation  of  their  free 
dom  at  that  time  was  little  less  than  miraculous.  In  his 
message  of  December,  1863,  Mr.  Lincoln  had  but  little  to 
say  concerning  his  proclamation  freeing  the  slaves.  He 
knew  and  all  knew  that  the  efficiency  of  his  proclamation 
depended  entirely  upon  the  final  outcome  of  the  war;  and 
the  language  of  his  message  plainly  revealed  the  fact  that 

[115] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

even  then  he  would  have  been  willing  to  have  sacrificed 
anything  to  stop  the  war.  The  fortunes  of  war  had  at  last 
turned  in  favor  of  the  Federal  forces  and  it  needed  no  prophet 
to  foretell  what  the  end  must  be.  At  the  beginning  of  its 
session,  therefore,  Congress  at  once  began  to  formulate 
plans  for  making  universal  freedom  in  the  United  States  a 
part  of  our  organic  law.  Prominent  among  the  propositions 
for  a  constitutional  amendment  submitted  in  the  House,  was 
one  by  Thaddeus  Stevens,  March  28th,  1864;  while  in  the 
Senate  propositions  of  a  like  purport  were  submitted  by 
Senators  Sumner  and  Henderson,  that  of  the  latter  having 
subsequently  been  reported  and  adopted  in  almost  the  exact 
language  of  its  author.1  There  was  now  an  apparent  dis 
position  on  the  part  of  Congress,  which  maintained  a  position 
ahead  of  the  Executive  and  behind  the  people,  to  slow  up 
and  watch  the  effect  of  the  radical  legislation  already  adopted. 
There  were  certain  men  in  Congress,  however,  who  viewed 
the  general  emancipation  act  as  a  mere  frame  into  which 
real  emancipation  had  to  be  set.  Mr.  Sumner,  who  was 
Chairman  of  the  Special  Committee  on  Emancipation,  in  the 
Senate,  at  once  turned  his  attention  to  the  District  of  Col 
umbia  and  reported  a  bill,  December  10th,  1863,  intended  to 
secure  the  equality  of  all  before  the  law  in  the  District ;  and 
this  was  soon  followed  by  another  act  forbidding  the  ex 
clusion  of  colored  persons  from  the  streets  cars  in  that 
place. 

The  Senate  passed  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  on  April 
8th,  1864,  but  the  measure  was  not  brought  to  a  vote  in 
the  House  until  June  15th,  when  it  failed  for  want  of  the 
requisite  two-thirds  vote,  there  having  been  93  votes  for 
to  65  contra,  while  23  members  refused  to  vote.  Mr.  James 
M.  Ashley  on  seeing  that  the  measure  was  about  to 
be  defeated,  changed  his  vote  from  the  affirmative  to  the 
negative,  and  at  the  same  time  gave  notice  to  the  House 
of  his  intention  to  move  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  motion 
by  which  the  measure  was  defeated.  Mr.  Ashley  upbraided 
his  colleagues  of  the  House  for  their  refusal  to  support  the 


1.  Globe  First  Session  Thirty-eighth  Cong.,  pp.  145,  553. 

[116] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

amendment  on  its  first  vote.  These  men  were  afraid  to  go 
on  record,  however,  in  favor  of  such  legislation  until  they 
had  seen  how  the  forthcoming  election  would  result.  As 
Mr.  Ashley  had  predicted,  in  the  elections  of  November,  1864, 
the  supporters  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  were  over 
whelmingly  victorious,  the  matter  having  been  made  a 
special  issue.  In  view  of  this  situation  and  of  the  further 
fact  that  the  President  urged  the  adoption  of  the  amend 
ment  in  his  annual  message,  when  the  House  met  in  Decem 
ber  there  was  nothing  to  be  done  about  the  matter  but  to 
take  a  formal  vote  giving  its  approval,  which  vote  was  taken 
on  January  31st,  1865,  when  the  amendment  was  passed  by 
a  vote  of  119  to  56.  It  was  enrolled  and  sent  to  the  President 
who  signed  it  February  1st,  and  slavery  so  far  as  it  could 
be  affected  by  national  legislation,  was  forever  abolished  in 
the  United  States. 

The  colored  people's  "Far  off  divine  event"  at  last  had 
come ;  the  time  of  which  thousands  had  dreamed  enchanted, 
only  to  be  awakened  in  disappointment ;  the  time  when  old 
things  for  them  had  passed  away  and  their  new  heaven  and 
new  earth  suddenly  appeared.  Freedom  with  all  its  sup 
posed  privileges  had  come, — actual,  visible  freedom ;  and  this 
was  not  only  now  a  tangible  fact,  but  it  was  magnified  and 
exaggerated.  The  responsibilities  of  freedom  had  come,  too, 
silently,  grimly,  uncompromisingly ;  but  these  were  unap 
preciated  by  the  freedmen  in  the  sudden  glare  of  glory. 
Whatever  the  theory  may  be,  the  practical  test  as  to  whether 
a  man  ought  to  be  free  is  involved  in  his  ability  to  maintain 
himself  as  a  freeman ;  and  there  is  never  any  question  about 
this  where  one  seizes  his  freedom.  The  colored  people  who 
were  not  slaves  before  the  war  had  maintained  themselves 
in  a  most  commendable  manner,  it  is  true ;  but  they  were 
given  or  gained  their  liberty  under  normal  conditions,  and 
the  test  was  only  fair.  But  here  were  four  million  freedmen 
turned  loose  without  a  dollar  or  a  crust  of  bread  and  no 
shelter  but  the  canopy  of  heaven ;  old  men  and  women  who 
had  spent  their  many  winters  under  the  yoke,  and  young 
children,  none  of  whom  ever  knew  what  it  was  to  shift  for 

[117] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

themselves.  For  many  days  thousands  of  these  poor  people 
who  had  been  angrily  driven  from  their  cabins,  had  to  sleep 
on  the  bare  ground  and  subsist  upon  fruit  and  herbage.  But 
the  government  that  freed  them  did  not  require  them  to 
perform  the  impossible  feat  of  self  maintenance  from  the 
beginning,  though  help  could  not  be  at  once  extended  to  all 
as  we  have  just  observed.  The  Freedman's  Bureau,  however, 
was  promptly  established  by  an  act  passed  March  3,  1865. 
Section  4  of  the  Act  creating  this  Bureau  provided  as  fol 
lows  :  "That  the  Commissioner  under  direction  of  the  Presi 
dent,  shall  have  authority  to  set  apart  for  the  use  of  loyal 
refugees2  and  freedmen  such  tracts  of  land  within  the  in- 
surrectory  states  as  shall  have  been  abandoned  or  to  which 
the  United  States  shall  have  acquired  title  by  confiscation 
or  sale  or  otherwise;  and  to  every  male  citizen,  whether 
refugee  or  freedman,  there  shall  be  assigned  not  more  than 
forty  acres  of  such  land,  and  the  person  to  whom  it  is  so 
assigned  shall  be  protected  in  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the 
land  for  the  term  of  three  years  at  a  nominal  rent  not  ex 
ceeding  six  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  such  land  as  appraised 
by  the  state  authorities  in  the  year  1860  for  the  purpose  of 
taxation."  The  Act  further  provided  that  at  the  end  of  said 
term  or  at  any  time  within  said  term,  the  occupants  might 
purchase  the  land  and  receive  such  title  as  the  United  States, 
might  have.3 

Slavery  to  which  we  bowed  so  long  either  in  adoration 
or  in  fear;  that  robbed  the  nation  of  rest  and  peace  for  two, 
centuries ;  that  during  four  years  alone,  cost  billions  in 
money,  to  say  nothing  of  the  imponderable  loss  of  life  and 
the  long  sufferings  of  a  race,  had  now  struck  about  its  last 
blow  of  resistance,  having  had  only  one  more  to  strike  by 
which  the  culmination  of  its  evil  genius  was  to  be  made 
manifest ;  and  this  was  to  be  aimed  at  the  President  who  had 
"charity  for  all  and  malice  towards  none ;"  whose  life  was 
the  climax  of  the  19th  century  towards  which  events  for 


2.  The    term    applied    to    southern    whites    who    were    loyal    to    the   Union    and 
were  exiled   from   that   section   on   that  account. 

3.  U.   S.   Laws,  Second  Session  Thirty-eighth  Cong.,  p.  141. 

[118] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ages  had  pointed,  his  position  marking  twelve  on  the  dial 
of  modern  institutions  involving  the  liberties  and  govern 
ments  of  people.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  the  star  actor  in  the 
great  tragic  drama  of  the  ages  in  which  another  noted  player 
spoke  his  "Principles  of  Civil  Government,"  Tom  Paine,  his 
"Rights  of  Man,"  Jefferson  his  immortal  Declaration,  while 
Burns  and  Whittier  joined  in  a  chorus  of  song.  In  this  great 
tragedy,  staged  at  the  beginning  of  man's  history,  in  which 
the  world's  heroes  have  sought  to  interpret  the  emotions 
and  strivings  of  the  parties  and  races  they  represent,  emanat 
ing  from  man's  love  of  home,  clan  and  country,  the  divine 
author  assigned  to  none  more  beautiful  lines  than  those  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Lincoln:  "With  charity  for  all  and  malice 
towards  none."4 


4.  Lincoln    was    assassinated    by    John    Wilkes    Booth    at    Ford's    Theatre,    at 
Washington,    D.    C,    on    the    evening   of   April    14,    1865. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

The  Colored  Soldiers  and  Their  Status— Discrimination  as  to  Pay 
and  Treatment— Massachusetts'  Colored  Troops  Refuse  Pay — 
Officer  Littlefield's  Report— The  Draft  Act— The  Commission 
to  Pay  Loyal  Masters. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  Lincoln's  opposition  to  the  employ 
ment  of  colored  men  as  soldiers  and  the  fact  that  white 
men  of  the  soldier  class  violently  asserted  their  objections 
to  fighting  with  Negroes  as  comrades,  the  colored  people 
seemed  to  have  felt  instinctively  that  they  had  much  at 
stake  on  the  result  of  the  war  and  that  their  welfare  and 
interests  were  inseparably  connected  with  those  who  support 
ed  the  Union.  Negro  soldiers  were  no  new  thing.  L'Ouver- 
ture,1  three  quarters  of  a  century  before  this  time,  had  taught 
the  world  his  immortal  lesson  in  patriotism,  and  the  use  of 
arms ;  Salem2  and  Warren3  had  fallen  as  comrades  at  Bunker 
Hill ;  the  blood  of  colored  men  had  flown,  speaking  as  it 
went,  mingling  with  that  of  other  Americans  in  the  war  of 
1812.  But  persistent  opposition  to  such  troops  was  now 
developed  for  the  first  time  in  all  our  history.  We  have 
already  noted  how  many  of  the  objections  to  colored  troops 
being  used  in  the  war  were  met  and  overcome.  Colored 
men  were  now  eager  to  enter  the  army,  and  the  government 
sorely  needed  them,  but  did  not  want  to  give  them  a  definite 
status  as  soldiers. 

Among  the  troops  which  Massachusetts  sent  to  the  field 
in  the  early  part  of  1863,  were  two  regiments  of  colored 
men  whose  status  in  the  army  was  rather  anomalous.  In 
July,  1862,  Senator  Wilson  introduced  a  resolution  amend 
ing  the  Act  approved  February  28th,  1795,  providing  for  the 
calling  out  of  the  militia,  which  amendment,  among  other 
things,  provided  that  all  persons  who  should  be  enrolled  in 


1.  Haytian   Negro  General. 

2.  Peter   Salem.    Negro,   who    shot   Major   Pitcairn,   British   officer,   at    Bunker 
Hill. 

3.  General  Warren,  American  Commander. 


1 120| 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  army  under  this  Act  should  receive  the  pay  of  regular 
soldiers  except  "persons  of  African  descent  who  should  re 
ceive   ten   dollars    per   month    and   one    ration."      Hereupon, 
Senator  Sherman  moved  to  amend  the  Wilson  resolution  so 
as  to  provide  that  three  dollars  per  month  of  the  ten  dollars 
should   be    retained    for   clothing   and    this    amendment    was 
agreed   to   and   the    measure   passed    in    that    shape.      There 
was  also  embodied  in  the   same  measure,  which   was   made 
a  part  of  the  Confiscation  Bill,  provision  for  the  freedom  of 
the  mother,  wife  and  children  of  colored  men  enlisting  under 
the  Act.   This  part   of    the   Act   referred   to   slaves   of   rebel 
masters  only ;  the  status  pi  those  belonging  to  loyal  masters 
was  touched  upon  in  our  first  notice  of  the  bill  where  pro 
vision  was  made  for  the  freedom  of  the  slave  with  payment 
of  bounty,  etc.,  to  the  master.    The  pay  of  white  soldiers  at 
the  time  was  fixed  at  thirteen  dollars  a  month  in  addition  to 
clothing  and  supplies,  besides  being  allowed  two   rations   a 
day.    The   Wilson-Sherman    measure,   which   was    meant   to 
apply  to  free  Negroes  like  those  of  Massachusetts,  therefore, 
was  very  discriminative   as  between   the   colored  and  white 
troops.   The  Massachusetts  regiments  above  referred  to  were 
duly  received  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  and  at  once 
sent  to  the  front ;  and  soon  many  of  these  men  were  asleep 
on  Sullivan's  Island  with  their  gallant  leader,  Colonel  Shaw. 
The  paymaster  arrived  in  due  course  and  tendered  the  amount 
arranged    for   under    the   Act    of    Congress    just    mentioned. 
The  money  was  refused.  No  word  of  protest  was  uttered  nor 
was  there  a  murmur  heard  from  these  soldiers.    The  State  of 
Massachusetts  gratuitously  offered  to  make  up  the  difference 
but  the  offer  was  refused.    Month  after  month  passed  while 
nothing  but  hard  fighting  and  harder  treatment  went  to  make 
up    the    history    of    these    colored    soldiers    for    the    Union. 
Benevolent    citizens    of    Massachusetts    anxiously    besought 
these  troops  to  accept  private  donations  from  them  but  all 
were  respectfully  declined.  The  fact  that  every  time  the  pay 
master  came  around  he  found  fewer  and  fewer  of  the  now 
veterans  to  whom  it  was  his  duty  to  offer  this  insult,  told 
plainer  than  words  what  was  happening  to  these  men,  the 

[121] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

bones  of  many  of  whose  comrades  were  whitening  in  the 
fields  and  swamps  of  the  South  where  they  had  been  killed 
in  battle  or  had  been  murdered  as  prisoners  of  war  while 
fighting  in  defense  of  a  nation  whose  Representatives  were 
quibbling  about  according  them  the  rights  of  common 
soldiers.  And  a  whole  year  passed  before  Attorney  General 
Bates,  in  co-operation  with  the  Secretary  of  War  and  many 
field  Generals,  succeeded  in  inducing  Congress  to  abrogate 
this  statute.  In  connection  with  his  bill  for  the  equalization 
of  the  pay  of  soldiers  employed  in  the  United  States  army, 
Senator  Wilson,  on  February  3,  1864,  read  a  report  from  M.  S. 
Littlefield,  who  was  in  command  of  the  colored  troops  at 
Folly  Island,  of  which  the  following  are  extracts,  being 
answers  to  specific  points  of  inquiry  made  by  the  Senator : 
"The  amount  of  work  done  by  black  soldiers  as  compared 
with  the  whites  was  as  56  to  51.  *  *  *  These  men,  as 
soldiers,  have  been  severely  tested,  tried  as  they  were  for 
fatigue  men.  *  *  *  The  assaulting  column  at  Fort  Wag 
ner,  July  18,  was  led  by  the  Fifty-fourth  Massachusetts ;  and 
their  decimated  ranks  and  the  number  of  the  dead  picked  up 
in  the  trenches  and  on  the  parapet  and  in  the  fort  speaks 
plainer  than  words  of  their  bravery  in  that  sanguinary  con 
flict.  *  *  *  They  entered  into  the  engagement  with  an 
enthusiasm  rarely  equaled  and  never  excelled."  The  report 
further  went  on  to  say  that  "the  Fifty-fourth  Massachusetts 
entered  the  service  on  May  28,  1863,  with  full  ranks.  This 
regiment  lost  in  killed  in  battle  59  men,  every  one  of  whom 
died  in  debt  to  the  government  for  supplies,  having  received 
no  pay  and  their  families  no  pension  or  bounty.  There  were 
wounded  of  this  regiment,  155;  the  greater  portion  of  these 
were  discharged  without  pay.  Every  man  who  fell  at  James 
Island  on  July  6  and  Fort  Wagner  July  18,  was  in  debt  to  the 
government  for  clothing;  they  have  died  and  received  no 
pay."4  Mr.  Wilson's  measure  provided,  Section.  2:  That  color 
ed  and  white  soldiers  should  be  subjected  to  the  same  treat 
ment  in  every  particular.  This  section  applied  especially  to 


4    For  full  report  see  Globe,  First  Session  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  p.  480;   see 
also  Gen.    B.    F.    Butler's    Book,   Chap.   XVI. 

[122] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

those  enlisting  after  January  1,  1864.  Section  3  provided 
that  all  persons  who  enlisted  in  response  to  the  call  of  the 
President  for  three  hundred  thousand  volunteers  on  October 
17,  1863,  should  receive  the  same  amount  of  pay,  bounty,  etc., 
regardless  of  color.  Section  4  provided  that  all  persons  who 
were  free  April  19,  1861,  and  had  enlisted  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  should  be  entitled  to  receive  the  same 
pay,  bounty,  etc.,  as  were  then  allowed  by  law  to  other  per 
sons  in  the  service  at  the  time.  This  Act  was  duly  approved 
and  became  law  June  15,  1864.  It  was  afterwards  amended, 
June  15,  1866,  so  as  to  provide  that  there  should  be  a  pre 
sumption  of  freedom  in  case  of  enlistment  unless  otherwise 
stated.  And  by  an  Act  passed  March  2,  1867,  the  word  "white" 
was  stricken  out  of  all  our  military  laws.  Congress  provided 
for  the  payment  of  back  wages,  etc.,  due  the  colored  soldiers 
by  an  Act  passed  June  6,  1866.  The  Draft  Act,, which  was  ap 
proved  February  24,  1864,  provided  for  the  enrollment  of  all 
able-bodied  colored  men  between  the  ages  of  20  and  45  years ; 
that  when  the  slave  of  a  loyal  master  should  be  enrolled 
under  the  Act,  his  master  should  receive  one  hundred  dollars 
and  the  slave  should  be  free ;  that  Congress  should  appoint  a 
commission  in  each  state  to  award  pay  to  such  loyal  masters 
as  claimed  service  of  any  colored  soldier  in  the  army,  the 
amount  not  to  exceed  three  hundred  dollars,  as  bounty  money. 
Some  of  the  provisions  of  these  Acts  may  be  confusing  unless 
one  keeps  in  mind  the  particular  classes  to  which  they  were 
intended  to  be  applied.  The  Wilson  measure  just  referred  to 
was  retroactive  and  was  intended  to  apply  to  colored  soldiers 
who  were  free  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  like  the  Massa 
chusetts  regiment ;  to  those  who  were  freed  by  the  proclama 
tion  that  went  into  effect  January  1,  1863,  and  to  those  who 
escaped  from  rebel  masters  prior  to  that  time  and  enlisted  in 
the  army.  The  Act  of  February,  1864,  had  particular  refer 
ence  to  the  colored  troops  recruited  in  slave  states  not  cover 
ed  by  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  where  the  whites  were 
presumably  loyal. 

The  position  of  the  colored  soldier  in  the  Civil  War  has  no 
parallel  in  history.   The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 

[123] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

had  just  decided  that  they  were  not  citizens ;  Congress  re 
fused  to  treat  them  as  soldiers ;  their  comrades  refused  to 
treat  them  as  men.  Warriors  they  were  indeed,  but  warriors 
without  a  country,  regiments  without  a  flag,  soldiers  without 
comrades.  They  fought  for  a  government  that  openly  strug 
gled  to  deprive  them  of  all  the  benefits  of  victory ;  for  a  coun 
try  in  whose  glory  they  were  openly  denied  any  share ;  for  a 
people  who  hated  them  as  cordially  as  the  enemy  against 
which  they  contended.  They  fought  without  promise,  with 
out  money  and  almost  without  hope.  Their  record  forms  a 
new  page  in  history  without  a  precedent  and  which,  doubt 
less,  will  be  without  a  subsequent. 


1 124 1 


CHAPTER  XV 


Just  After  the  War — Reconstruction — Republicans  Divided  into 
Radicals  and  Conservatives — Probable  Attitude  of  Lincoln — 
The  Sumner  Plan — Hints  at  Extension  of  the  Suffrage — Con 
gress  Petitioned  to  Extend  Suffrage — The  Black  Code  Attacked 
— President  Johnson  and  Congress  at  Odds — The  Growth  of 
Radicalism — Suffrage  in  the  District  of  Columbia — The  Power 
of  the  Freedman's  Bureau  Extended — Negroes  put  into  Pos 
session  of  Land  by  Sherman. 

"The  cruel  war"  was  over.  Lee  had  delivered  to  Grant  his 
sword  and  Grant  had  returned  it  with  the  pregnant  words : 
"Let  us  have  peace,"  and  the  great  Virginian  had  bidden  fare 
well  to  his  staff,  saying  to  them,  with  his  eyes  suffused  with 
tears,  "We  have  fought  through  the  war  together ;"  yet  the 
sectional  strife,  with  the  Negro  as  the  bone  of  contention, 
had  really  just  begun.  The  scene  of  the  struggle  was  only 
transferred  from  the  battlefield  to  Congress,  towards  which 
all  eyes  were  now  turned.  The  southern  whites  looked  to 
Congress  to  know  what  would  be  done  with  particular  refer 
ence  to  them ;  the  colored  people  looked  to  Congress  to  know 
what  would  be  done  particularly  for  them,  while  Congress 
itself  was  puzzled  to  know  what  ought  to  be  done  and  what 
could  be  done  to  conserve  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned. 
The  cessation  of  hostilities  was  about  as  confusing  as  their 
continuance  had  been.  The  relation  of  the  seceded  states  to 
the  national  government ;  the  necessary  steps  to  be  taken  to 
induce  or  compel  the  southern  whites  to  recognize  and  re 
spect  the  freedom  of  the  blacks ;  the  most  practical  methods 
to  be  pursued  in  teaching  the  freedmen  properly  to  appreciate 
their  own  manhood  and  responsibilities  were  matters  which 
demanded  the  most  profound  statesmanship  and  diplomatic 
skill.  The  mere  termination  of  hostilities  seemed  to  have  sat 
isfied  those  who  were  solicitious  only  for  the  salvation  of  the 
Union;  many  others  seemed  to  have  thought  that  the  mere 
abolition  of  slavery  was  enough.  After  saving  the  Union  and 

[125] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

abolishing  slavery  who  could  ask  for  more  ?  To  hope  for  more 
was  to  be  an  impractical  theorist ;  to  demand  more  was  to  be 
a  fanatic.  In  their  great  joy  over  the  ending  of  the  war,  the 
great  body  of  the  people  forgot  that  the  whole  resulted  in 
raising  by  far  more  questions  than  had  been  settled ;  that  the 
conflict  destroyed  the  quasi  order,  that  was,  leaving  our  whole 
social  and  political  systems  in  chaos  and  confusion. 

A  conflict  at  once  arose  in  Congress  between  those  who  de 
sired  to  reconstruct  the  governments  of  the  seceded  states  in 
accordance  with  the  new  order  of  things,  and  those  who  did 
not  want  anything  done  to  remind  the  South  of  its  defeat. 
Even  during  the  war  there  had  been  those  known  as  "Copper 
heads,"  such  as  Vallandingham,  of  Ohio,  and  Fernanda  Wood, 
of  New  York,  who  consistently  championed  the  cause  of  the 
secessionists  as  earnestly,  if  not  as  ably,  as  Messrs.  Davis  and 
Toombs  had  done,  and  the  number  of  more  or  less  vigorous 
opponents  of  Republican  legislation  now  began  rapidly  to  in 
crease.  In  the  meantime  the  South  began  to  settle  on  a  policy 
of  its  own  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of  the  freedmen  which 
involved  a  determination  to  exterminate  them.  This  apparent 
intention  on  the  part  of  the  white  people  of  the  South  to  ex 
terminate  the  colored  people  or  reduce  them  to  a  position 
more  intolerable  than  what  slavery  itself  had  been,  coupled 
with  the  serious  disagreement  between  President  Johnson 
and  Congress,  is  responsible  for  much  of  the  radical  legisla 
tion  enacted  by  Congress  during  that  period.  The  pitiable 
situation  of  the  freedmen  in  the  South  was  notorious,  and 
when  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  met  De 
cember  4,  1865,  there  was  a  shower  of  petitions  and  bills  bear 
ing  upon  the  matter.  Everybody  seemed  to  have  had  a  plan 
of  his  own.  As  to  what  Mr.  Lincoln  might  have  done  in  this 
crisis  had  he  been  living  is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  Though 
he  was  chary  of  speech  where  definite  plans  and  policies  were 
concerned,  he  had  said  and  done  enough  before  his  untimely 
death  to  let  it  be  known  that  he  was  far  from  being  a  radical 
reconstructionist.  Mr.  Lincoln  would  go  only  so  far  as  to  say 
that  the  seceded  states  "were  out  of  relation  with  respect  to 
the  government."  During  the  last  days  of  the  first  session  of 

[126] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  a  joint  resolution  was  passed  by 
both  Houses  prescribing  the  conditions  upon  which  the  re 
bellious  states  might  be  received  back  into  the  Union  and  de 
claring  the  attitude  of  Congress  towards  them  as  follows: 
First,  that  they  "should  be  allowed  to  cast  no  electoral  votes ;" 
second,  that  they  "should  not  be  allowed  to  elect  United 
States  Senators  and  Representatives ;"  third,  that  they 
"should  be  required  to  acquiesce  unreservedly  in  the  Thir 
teenth  Amendment/'  Mr.  Lincoln  refused  to  approve  this 
measure  and  accomplished  its  defeat  by  "pocketing"  it,  or 
holding  it  up  without  signing  or  returning  it  until  after  Con 
gress  adjourned;  he  then  undertook  to  substitute  for  this  Act 
a  plan  of  his  own  by  proclamation  and  in  so  doing  gave  grave 
offense  to  several  members  of  Congress  who  had  been 
his  most  ardent  supporters.1  Further  light  is  shed  upon  the 
probable  course  of  Mr.  Lincoln  by  the  later  position  of  cer 
tain  Congressmen  who  were  known  always  to  reflect  the  sen 
timents  of  the  Executive  with  more  or  less  accuracy.  These 
abject  followers  of  the  Executive  returned  to  Washington 
prepared  to  advocate  a  much  weaker  policy.  During  the  last 
days  of  this  Congress  Mr.  Ashley  brought  up  a  bill  involving 
the  same  matter  as  that  encouched  in  the  bill  which  Mr.  Lin 
coln  declined  to  approve,  in  such  an  emasculated  form  that  he 
himself  was  displeased  with  it  and  characterized  it  as  a  mere 
compromise ;  but  as  it  savored  of  an  extension  of  the  suffrage 
it  failed  and  it  was  openly  charged  on  the  floor  of  Congress 
that  the  failure  of  this,  too,  was  due  to  the  opposition  of 
President  Lincoln  to  such  measures.  Garfield,  Conklin  and  a 
number  of  others  were  on  the  very  verge  of  a  breach  with  the 
Lincoln  administration,  while  both  Mr.  Ashley  and  H.  Winter 
Davis  arraigned  Mr.  Lincoln  on  the  floor  of  the  House  in  no 
uncertain  manner.2  There  is  but  little  doubt  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
would  have  had  to  mend  his  pace  in  order  to  have  kept  up 
with  the  Congress  elected  just  after  the  war  by  men  who  had 
gained  much  practical  knowledge  of  the  temper  and  condi 
tions  of  the  southern  people  and  who,  perhaps,  had  some  vivid 


1.  See  Appendix. 

2.  Globe,  February  21,  1865,  p.  968. 


[127] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

memories  of  the  prison  pens  at  Andersonville  or  Libby.  One 
of  the  biggest  and  most  puzzling  questions  confronting  Con 
gress  at  this  time  was  as  to  the  status  of  the  seceded  states. 
Were  they  living  members  of  the  Union  only  "out  of  relation 
with  the  national  government,"  or  were  they  not  only  dis 
mantled  but  dead  members  of  the  Union  and  as  such,  had  no 
political  rights  except  such  as  Congress  might  now  confer? 
Mr.  Sumner,  the  leader  of  the  radicals  in  the  Senate,  em 
bodied  his  notions  as  to  the  matter  in  resolutions  offered  be 
fore  the  Senate  December  4,  1865,  of  which  the  following  is 
a  resume :  "Resolved  that  it  is  the  first  duty  of  Congress  to 
take  care  that  no  state  declared  in  rebellion  shall  resume  its 
relations  to  the  Union  until  the  satisfactory  performance  of 
five  several  conditions,  which  conditions  precedent  must  be 
submitted  to  a  popular  vote  and  be  sanctioned  by  a  majority 
of  the  people  of  each  state  respectively  as  follows:  1st,  The 
complete  re-establishment  of  loyalty  as  shown  by  an  honest 
recognition  of  the  unity  of  the  Republic  and  duty  of  allegi 
ance  to  it  at  all  times  without  mental  reservation  or  equivo 
cation  of  any  kind ;  2nd,  the  complete  suppression  of  all  oli 
garchical  pretensions  and  the  complete  enfranchisement  of  all 
citizens,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  denial  of  rights  on  account 
of  race  or  color,  but  justice  shall  be  impartial  and  all  shall  be 
equal  before  the  law ;  *  *  *  5th,  that  states  can  not  be 
precipitated  back  to  political  power  and  independence,  but 
must  wait  until  these  conditions  are  in  all  respects  fulfilled." 
In  another  set  of  resolutions  presented  the  same  day  Mr. 
Sumner  suggested  the  calling  of  conventions  for  the  purpose 
of  reorganizing  these  state  governments  setting  forth  who 
should  be  eligible  to  participate  in  the  same  and  declaring 
that  "no  government  of  a  state  recently  in  rebellion,  can  be 
accepted  as  Republican  where  large  masses  of  the  citizens 
who  have  always  been  loyal  to  the  United  States  are  excluded 
from  the  elective  franchise,  and  especially  where  the  Union 
soldier  with  all  his  kindred  and  race  *  *  *  *  are  thrust 
away  from  the  polls  to  give  place  to  the  very  men  by  whose 
hand,  wound  and  death  were  inflicted;  more  particularly 
where,  as  in  some  of  the  states,  the  result  would  be  to  disfran- 

[128] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

chise  a  majority  of  the  citizens  who  have  always  been  loyal 
and  give  to  the  oligarchical  minority  recently  engaged  in 
carrying  on  the  rebellion,  the  power  to  oppress  the  loyal  ma 
jority,  even  to  the  extent  of  driving  them  from  their  homes 
and  depriving  them  of  all  opportunity  of  a  livelihood.  *  *  * 
No  government  can  be  accepted  as  Republican  in  form  where 
a  large  portion  of  the  native-born  citizens,  charged  with  no 
crime  and  no  failure  of  duty,  is  left  wholly  unrepresented  al 
though  compelled  to  pay  taxes ;  and  especially  where  a  single 
race  is  singled  out  and  denied  representation,  though  com 
pelled  to  pay  taxes."  At  this  particular  time  Senator  Sumner 
stood  practically  alone  in  his  position  on  the  question  of  re 
construction  ;  the  obstinacy  of  President  Johnson  and  the  ac 
tivity  of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  however,  soon  compelled  many 
others  to  join  Sumner  and  the  radicals,  though  not  before 
he  had  been  much  berated  as  a  "crank"  and  visionary  even  by 
many  of  his  Republican  colleagues.  Senator  Sumner's  senti 
ments  soon  began  to  be  echoed  outside  of  Congress.  The 
legislatures  of  several  states  passed  resolutions  requesting 
Congress  to  extend  the  suffrage.  In  nearly  all  the  states  there 
were  two  sets  of  laws — one  for  the  whites  and  another  for 
the  colored  people.  And  not  only  was  there  a  difference  in  the 
privileges  under  the  law  in  regard  to  the  two  races,  but  the 
penalties  and  punishments  differed  as  well.  The  formulation 
of  a  most  iniquitous  system  of  "black  laws"  was  the  first 
thing  done  by  the  southern  states  upon  their  finding  out  that 
emancipation  was  a  fact.  The  shameless  character  of  these 
codes  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  Congress  and  on  De 
cember  3,  1865,  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens  offered  a  measure 
which  provided  that  all  national  and  state  laws  should  be 
equally  applicable  to  all  citizens  among  whom  there  should 
be  no  discrimination  on  account  of  race  or  color.  This  meas 
ure  was  adopted  by  the  House  after  an  extended  debate  and 
many  bitter  passes  between  the  members.  The  Stevens  propo 
sition  was  not  so  radical  as  the  position  of  Sumner,  whose 
resolutions  sounded  the  keynote  of  both  the  Fourteenth  and 
Fifteenth  Amendments.  Indeed,  Mr.  Sumner  brought  this 
measure  forward  in  the  first  instance  as  a  proposed  Four- 

[129] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

teenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  but  it  was  not  re 
ported  out  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  which  it  was  re 
ferred. 

As  the  policy  of  Congress  in  relation  to  the  freedmen  as 
sumed  a  more  aggressive  tone,  the  more  evident  became  the 
friction  between  that  body  and  the  President.  Mr.  Johnson 
was  a  southern  man  and  before  the  war  had  been  a  most  fear 
less  champion  of  his  section.  As  a  Republican  he  was  known 
to  be  a  Conservative  of  the  Conservatives ;  it  was  suspected 
and  even  feared  in  some  quarters  that  he  had  never  experi 
enced  any  real  change  of  heart  on  the  questions  of  dealing 
with  colored  people.  He  never  had  the  confidence  of  the  radi 
cals  in  Congress  who  first  doubted,  then  disputed  and  finally 
attacked  him.  Thaddeus  Stevens  was  chief  among  those  who 
opposed  him  in  the  House,  and  in  speaking  of  the  bitterness 
of  Stevens  against  President  Johnson,  Senator  Doolittle  said, 
insinuatingly:  "He  (Stevens)  goes  with  the  furtherest  and  is 
most  bitterly  opposed  to  the  present  administration.  He  stig 
matizes  Andrew  Johnson  as  an  alien  enemy  and  opposed  his 
nomination  at  Baltimore."3  Mr.  Stevens  was  very  little  if  any 
behind  Sumner  in  his  advanced  attitude  on  the  race  question. 
Referring  to  the  matter  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  House  on 
December  18,  1865,  Mr.  Stevens  said:  "The  infernal  laws  of 
slavery  have  prevented  them  (the  colored  people)  from  ac 
quiring  education,  understanding  the  commonest  laws  of  con 
tracts  or  managing  the  ordinary  business  of  life.  This  Con 
gress  is  bound  to  provide  for  them  until  they  can  take  care  of 
themselves.  If  we  do  not  furnish  them  with  homesteads  and 
hedge  them  about  with  laws ;  if  we  leave  them  to  the  legisla 
tion  of  their  late  masters,  we  had  better  left  them  in  bondage. 
Their  condition  would  be  worse  than  that  of  our  soldiers  at 
Andersonville.  If  we  fail  in  this  great  duty,  now  we  have  the 
power,  we  shall  deserve  and  receive  the  execration  of  history 

3.  Col.  A.  K.  McClure,  of  Philadelphia,  who  was  on  most  intimate  terms  with 
Mr.  Lincoln,  declared  that  Johnson  was  nominated  for  Vice-President  at  the 
Baltimore  Convention  in  1864  solely  through  the  influence  of  Lincoln,  who 
wished  to  have  a  War  Democrat  as  his  running  mate  rather  than  Hamlin,  who 
had  been  elected  with  him  in  1860,  hoping  in  this  manner  to  show  his  spirit 
of  conciliation  towards  the  South.  Mr.  Nickolay,  an  employee  of  the  White 
House  during  Lincoln's  first  administration,  and  one  of  Lincoln's  biographers, 
denies  the  correctness  of  Colonel  McClure's  statement.  There  is  little  doubt, 
however,  but  that  Colonel  McClure  was  quite  correct. 

[130] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

and  of  all  future  ages.  *  *  *  Without  the  right  of  suf 
frage  in  the  late  slave  states  I  believe  the  slaves  had  better 
been  left  in  bondage.  *  *  *  Sir,  this  doctrine  of  a  'white 
man's  government'  is  as  atrocious  as  that  which  damned  the 
late  Chief  Justice  (Taney)  to  everlasting  fame  and,  I  fear,  to 
^everlasting  fire." 

The  situation  in  the  South  was  now  such  as  to  leave  Con- 
.gress  but  little  choice  about  the  matter  of  radical  reconstruc 
tion,  and  it  was  evident  that  the  freedmen  had  to  be  made 
auxiliary  in  connection  with  any  plan  that  might  be  adopted 
if  the  government  entertained  the  least  hope  of  carrying  it 
out.  Popular  clamor  for  relief  was  constantly  increasing  and 
Congress  was  compelled  to  act  without  delay.  On  one  day 
Senator  Sumner  presented  petitions  numerously  signed  by 
citizens  of  Massachuetts,  Missouri,  Kentucky,  Indiana,  Ohio, 
Illinois,  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  in  all  of  which  the  ex 
tension  of  the  suffrage  to  the  freedmen  was  either  suggested 
or  demanded.  The  "Black  Codes"  were  still  in  force,  though 
the  law  abolishing  them  went  into  effect  the  latter  part  of 
December,  1865.  Until  the  Act  abolishing  these  discriminat 
ing  laws  went  into  effect,  colored  people  were  not  only  not 
allowed  to  give  testimony  in  court  but  had  absolutely  no  de 
fense  against  the  treatment  to  which  they  were  subjected. 
The  first  definite  steps  for  the  extension  of  the  suffrage  were 
taken  on  December  5,  1865,  when  Mr.  William  D.  Kelly,  of 
Pennsylvania,  introduced  a  bill  in  the  House  for  the  exten 
sion  of  the  suffrage  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  A  similar 
measure  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Julian  on  December  11.  The 
Kelly  measure  was  taken  up  by  the  House  and  passed  Janu 
ary  18,  1866,  by  a  vote  of  116  to  54.4  This  bill  was  reported 
by  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia  on  Feb 
ruary  21,  1866,  without  amendment;  although  it  was  called  up 
on  June  27,  it  was  not  finally  disposed  of  by  the  Senate  until 
the  next  session,  when  it  was  again  called  up  and  passed  on 
December  13,  by  a  vote  of  32  to  27. 5  In  the  meantime,  the  op 
ponents  of  the  measure,  determined  to  get  the  benefit  of  the 

4.  "When  the  vote  was  announced,"   says  the  Reporter,  "there  was   great   ap 
plause  on   the   floor  and  in   the   galleries." 

5.  President  Johnson  vetoed  it,  but  it  was  finally  passed  over  his  head. 

[131] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

moral  effect  of  a  popular  vote  against  it  by  the  white  citizens 
of  Washington,  and  so  on  December  21  they  voted  on  the 
question  at  a  popular  election.  Mr.  Richard  Wallach,  Mayor 
of  Washington,  reported  the  result  of  this  vote  to  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  Senate  on  January  5,  1866,  as  follows:  Against 
Negro  suffrage  6591 ;  for  Negro  suffrage  35 ;  majority  against 
the  proposition  6556.  The  Mayor  was  much  elated  over  the 
result  and  in  closing  his  report,  he  said:  "The  people,  claiming 
an  independence  of  thought  and  the  right  to  express  it,  have 
thus  given  a  grave  and  deliberate  utterance  in  an  unexagger- 
ated  manner  to  their  opinion  and  feeling  on  this  question." 
But  the  whole  thing  fell  flat  as  everybody  knew  what  to  ex 
pect  of  an  old  slave  mart  like  Washington ;  the  election  was* 
regarded  as  a  farce.  Congress  finally  settled  the  whole  mat 
ter  by  depriving  the  city  of  its  charter  and  taking  the  govern 
ment  of  the  District  of  Columbia  into  its  own  hands  as  au 
thorized  and  empowered  to  do  by  the  Constitution.  The  South 
having  persisted  in  its  contumacious  course,  Congress  now 
began  to  consider  coercive  measures,  and  to  this  end  a  bill 
was  introduced  in  the  House  on  January  5  for  the  extension 
of  the  powers  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  When  the  Bureau 
was  first  organized  only  a  temporary  arrangement  was  con 
templated  and  the  Bureau  was  given  few  powers  which  were 
limited  and  strictly  construed;  the  Act  extending  its  powers, 
specifically  provided  for  its  continuance  until  especially  abol 
ished  and  for  the  exercise  of  its  functions  in  behalf  of  freed- 
men  and  refugees  wherever  such  persons  might  be  found,  and 
conferred  upon  the  Secretary  of  War  authority  to  issue  to 
them  clothing,  fuel  and  supplies.  Section  3  of  the  original  bill 
was  amended  so  as  to  provide  for  setting  apart  some  three 
million  acres  of  land  in  Florida,  Mississippi  and  Arkansas  for- 
homes  for  freedmen  upon  the  payment  of  a  nominal  consid 
eration.  General  Sherman,  by  a  field  order,  dated  at  Savannah, 
January  16,  1865,  had  put  certain  lands  which  he  had  found 
abandoned  along  the  sea  coast  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina 
into  the  possession  of  freedmen.  This  naked  grant  as  it  stood 
was  not  only  of  indefinite  duration  but  was  of  doubtful  va 
lidity;  the  matter  was  taken  up  in  connection  with  the  Bu- 

[152] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

reau  Bill,  the  Sherman  order  was  confirmed  and  indefeas 
ible  titles  were  vested  in  the  holders  for  a  term  of  two  years. 
Senator  Trumbull,  who  called  the  Sherman  order  up  in  con 
nection  with  the  Bureau  measure,  intended  to  have  these 
titles  simply  confirmed,  but  after  a  long  debate  it  was  agreed 
that  possession  should  be  limited  to  two  years.6  The  bill  also 
provided  for  the  securing  of  land  and  erecting  thereon 
asylums,  schools,  etc.,  for  freedmen ;  for  putting  under  mar 
tial  law  any  state  or  section  where  persons  of  color  were 
denied  their  civil  rights;  section  8  of  the  bill  being  as  follows: 
"And  be  it  further  enacted  that  any  person  who,  under  color 
of  any  state  or  local  law,  ordinance,  police  or  other  regulation 
or  custom,  shall  in  any  sta,te  or  district  in  which  the  ordinary 
course  of  judicial  proceedings  has  been  interrupted  by  the 
rebellion,  subject  or  cause  to  be  subjected,  any  Negro,  mulat 
to,  freedman  or  refugee,  or  any  other  persons  on  account  of 
race  or  color  or  any  other  cause,  to  the  deprivation  of  any 
civil  right  secured  to  white  persons  or  to  any  other  or  differ 
ent  punishment  from  that  to  which  white  persons  are  sub 
jected  to  for  the  commission  of  like  acts  or  offences  shall  be 
deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  be  punished  by  a  fine  not 
exceeding  one  thousand  dollars  or  imprisonment  not  exceed 
ing  one  year  or  both/'  The  Bureau  was  made  responsible  for 
the  enforcement  of  the  Act  under  direction  of  the  War  De 
partment.  It  was  especially  provided,  however,  that  the  Bu 
reau  should  yield  control  of  these  affairs  as  soon  as  the  states 
should  resume  their  functions.  And  although  the  measure 
was  simply  intended  as  a  penalty  upon  the  recursancy  of  the 
South  from  which  they  might  have  had  instant  relief 
by  resuming  in  good  faith  their  functions  as  states,  the 
measure  was  most  vehemently  attacked  in  Congress  espe 
cially  by  men  from  the  border  states  like  Kentucky  and  Dela 
ware.7  The  border  men  claimed  that  such  legislation  was  hu 
miliating  to  their  states  and  the  Democrats  attacked  the 


6.  Mr.  Stevens  contended  that  these  lands  had  been  forfeited  under  the  Con 
fiscation  Act  of  1862;   and  in  any  case,  the   government  ought   to  procure  land 
for  the  freedmen,  not  exceeding  40  acres.     It  was  in  these  debates  that  the  "40 
acres  of  land  and  a  mule  for  each  freedman"  was  first  made  prominent. 

7.  The  bill  was  passed  over  the   President's  veto,  July   16,   1866.    See  Laws  of 
U.   S.,  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  p.   367. 

[133] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

measure  generally  on  the  ground  that  it  provided  for  a  use 
less  expenditure  of  money.  Senator  Salisbury,  of  Delaware, 
most  eloquently  declared  that  such  a  law  could  have  no  pos 
sible  application  to  his  state.  It  was  a  notorious  fact,  however, 
that  there  were  places  even  in  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois,  bor 
dering  on  the  slave  states,  where  the  feeling  against  Negroes 
was  so  intense  that  no  colored  person  ever  dared  to  show 
himself,  under  penalty  of  the  most  cruel  torture  or  even 
death.  Even  unto  this  day  colored  people  are  about  as  scarce 
in  these  spots  as  they  are  in  the  north  of  Europe.  Many  of 
these  places  became  celebrated  for  the  sport  their  inhabitants 
enjoyed  in  the  chase  after  fugitive  slaves,  driving  them 
through  woods  and  fields  with  clubs  and  stones  until  the  pant 
ing  fugitive  reached  the  river  into  which  he  would  often 
plunge  to  death  rather  than  to  be  caught  arid  be  tortured  for 
the  amusement  of  the  people  and  then  finally  returned  to  the 
southern  marl. 


1 134 1 


CHAPTER  XVI 

The  Necessity  for  Clothing  the  Freedmen  with  Citizenship — The 
Fourteenth  Amendment — The  Sentiment  of  the  South — The 
First  Civil  Rights  Measure— Sumner's  Radicalism— The  Stew 
art  Proposition — President  Johnson's  Plan — The  Commission 
to  Pay  for  Slaves  of  So-Called  Loyal  Masters. 

The  exigencies  of  the  times  gradually  made  it  apparent  that 
emancipation  alone  was  simply  a  destructive  act ;  that  the 
quasi  protection  which  colored  people  had  been  receiving  in 
return  for  life  had  been  now  taken  away,  leaving  them  with 
out  security  in  the  enjoyment  of  either  their  quasi  liberties 
or  their  lives ;  that  interposition  of  the  government  on  behalf 
of  the  freedmen  was  absolutely  necessary.  This  intervention 
could  be  made  effective  only  by  placing  within  the  reach  of 
the  colored  people  themselves  such  means  of  self-help  as 
might  be  afforded  by  clothing  them  with  citizenship.  For, 
however  odious  the  decision  of  Judge  Taney  might  have 
seemed,  it  had  to  stand  as  law  until  abrogated  or  repealed. 
Negroes  might  have  been  construed  to  be  citizens  by  impli 
cation  if  they  had  been  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  priviliges  of 
citizens ;  but  since  this  was  not  generally  true  any  more  in 
1866  than  it  had  been  at  the  time  of  the  Dred  Scott  Decision, 
an  express  Act  of  Congress  was  necessary  to  confer  citizen 
ship.  Besides  all  this,  "the  three-fifths  of  all  others"  clause 
in  the  Constitution  would  now  have  to  be  left  to  the  con 
struction  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  would  doubtless  have 
found  a  way  out  of  the  difficulty  at  the  expense  of  the  Ne 
groes,  as  Taney  was  not  the  only  genius  on  that  Bench  or  the 
only  one  that  has  graced  it  since  his  time,  unless  the  situation 
should  be  handled  by  Congress. 

Among  the  many  propositions  embodying  a  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  was  one  by  James  G. 
Elaine,  as  follows :  "Representatives  and  direct  taxes 
shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  states  which 
may  be  included  within  this  Union  according  to  their  re- 

[135] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

spective  numbers  which  shall  be  determined  by  taking  the 
whole  number  of  persons,  except  those  to  whom  civil  or  po 
litical  rights  are  denied  or  abridged  by  the  constitutions  or 
laws  of  any  state  on  account  of  race  or  color."  Against  this 
proposition  it  was  argued  that  it  constitutionalized  the  dis- 
franchisement  of  a  portion  of  the  people ;  that  while  the  con 
stitution  and  laws  of  a  state  might  confer  pretended  rights 
of  franchise,  the  people  themselves  might  seek  to  determine 
who  should  exercise  such  rights.1  A  scheme  for  the  appor 
tionment  of  Representatives  on  the  basis  of  voters  was  also 
suggested,  but  as  this  would  affect  the  northern  states  as 
much  as  the  South,  it  gained  no  favor.  The  subject  had  not 
yet  reached  the  stage  where  the  conferring  of  the  suffrage 
on  the  freedmen  was  generally  advocated  with  boldness, 
though  Mr.  Bingham  in  a  discussion  of  the  general  subject, 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  when  a  motion  was  made  in 
the  Confederation  Convention  of  1778  to  limit  the  citizenship 
by  use  of  the  word  "white"  it  was  rejected  with  scorn.  He 
added  that  he  "intended  by  the  help  of  Congress  and  the 
American  people,  to  have  inserted  in  the  Constitution  an  af 
firmative  declaration  abolishing  distinctions  as  to  citizenship 
in  the  United  States  based  on  race  or  color."  Such  sentiments 
were  now  beginning  to  be  echoed  about  both  Houses  of  Con 
gress,  especially  since  it  appeared  that  President  Johnson  was 
aiding  the  South  in  its  stubborn  course  in  regard  to  recon 
struction.  Senator  Howe  delivered  himself  of  a  fierce  attack 
upon  Mr.  Johnson,  whom  he  jointly  arraigned  with  the  South 
in  opposing  the  spirit  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment.  Refer 
ring  more  particularly  to  the  South,  he  said:  "They  mean  to 
monopolize,  in  spite  of  emancipation,  the  freedman's  labor, 
to  control  its  wages  and  appropriate  its  proceeds ;  they  mean 
to  do  more ;  they  mean  to  convince  the  American  people  that 
emancipation  was  a  blunder  and  a  crime.  If  you  who  are  re 
sponsible  for  emancipation  ardently  desire  to  be  damned  for 
it,  you  have  only  to  place  it  into  the  hands  of  its  most  relent 
less  enemies  to  administer  and  illustrate."  Mr.  Howe  further 
declared  that  the  South  would  make  unremitting  efforts  to 


1  See  Appendix  for   Supreme   Court   Decision  on   this   point. 

[136] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

stir  up  revolt  on  the  part  of  the  blacks  and  described  how 
their  papers  would  be  filled  with  visionary  repetitions  of  the 
horrors  of  San  Domingo,  and  thought  that  oppression  cun 
ningly  devised  and  persistently  applied  might  possibly  lead 
the  freedmen  to  revolt. 

Another  proposition  for  the  apportionment  of  Representa 
tives  and  the  one  that  was  finally  embodied  in  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  as  passed  was  the  one  offered  by  Mr.  Roscoe 
Conklin  January  15,  1866.  Mr.  Stevens,  who  was  Chairman 
of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Fifteen  otherwise  known  as  the 
Reconstruction  Committee,  composed  of  members  of  both 
Houses,  reported  the  Conklin  proposition  on  January  22.  Mr. 
Conklin  ably  championed  the  measure  and  declared,  in  answer 
to  criticisms  such  as  had  been  urged  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Elaine  proposition,  that  "if  a  race  in  any  state  is  unfit  to  vote 
and  fit  only  to  drudge,  the  wealth  created  by  its  work  ought 
to  be  taxed ;  those  who  profit  by  such  labor  ought  to  be  taxed 
for  it."  According  to  the  apportionment  of  1860  there  were 
251  Representatives,  156  from  free  states  and  85  from  slave 
states,  18  of  the  latter  representing  three-fourths  of  the 
slaves  as  follows :  1  each  from  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Kentucky, 
Missouri,  Tennessee  and  Texas ;  2  each  from  Georgia,  Louisi 
ana,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and  Vir 
ginia.  Mr.  Conklin  was  naturally  gratified  to  see  his  proposi 
tion  adopted,  but  Mr.  Elaine,  whose  resolution  was  something 
like  that  of  Mr.  Conklin,  openly  accused  the  latter  of  having 
taken  the  substance  of  his  measure,  changed  the  language 
and  then  assumed  the  original  authorship.  Mr.  Conklin,  proud 
and  sensitive  as  he  was,  felt  this  accusation  keenly;  and  it  is 
not  unlikely  that  this  incident  went  far  towards  precipitating 
the  grave  breach  between  these  two  gentlemen  that  became 
so  openly  manifest  in  after  years  and  which  was  never  healed. 
The  Conklin  measure,  however,  did  not  escape  the  sharpest 
criticism.  It  was  contended  that  it  left  too  many  loopholes 
through  which  the  South  might  slip  out.  In  truth,  it  was  very 
much  as  Mr.  Stevens  observed:  "There  were  about  as  many 
theories  as  there  were  Representatives,"  all  of  which  seemed 
to  have  had  some  elements  of  practicability.  Some  wanted 

[137] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

provisions  made  forever  disfranchising  all  of  those  who  took 
a  leading  part  in  the  rebellion.  Mr.  Jehu  Baker,  of  Illinois, 
strongly  urged  the  insertion  of  such  a  provision  in  a  lengthy 
speech  in  the  House,  and  in  connection  with  his  effort,  read 
extracts  from  letters  he  had  received  from  certain  govern 
ment  officials  in  the  South.  The  following  is  an  extract  from 
a  letter  written  by  Gov.  W.  G.  Brownlow,  of  Tennessee.2 
"There  is  better  feeling  in  Tennessee  than  in  any  other  south 
ern  state.  *  *  *  I  give  it  as  my  candid  opinion  that  if 
the  military  forces  were  removed  from  Tennessee  the  legis 
lature  would  be  at  once  dispersed  by  a  rebel  mob.  *  *  * 
Rebel  juries  are  indicting  Federal  soldiers  and  officers  and 
either  binding  them  over  to  court  in  heavy  bonds  or  casting 
them  into  prison  for  executing  orders  given  them  by  our 
generals  as  far  back  as  the  days  of  Rosecrans  and  Stone 
River !  And  many  of  the  rebels  speak  openly  and  say  Union 
men  and  Yankees  shall  not  live  in  the  country.  *  *  *  I 
believe  the  South  is  full  of  rebellion  and  is  seeking  to  accom 
plish  by  legislation  and  through  Congress  what  it  failed  to  do 
on  the  field  of  carnage — destroy  the  government."  The  fol 
lowing  is  extracted  from  a  letter  written  by  A.  J.  Fletcher, 
another  prominent  official  of  Tennessee :  "The  sympthizers 
with  the  'just  but  lost  cause/  will  form  a  compact  party  in  this 
state  held  together  by  hatred  of  those  whom  they  have 
branded  as  Tories  for  deserting  the  South  in  her  extremity, 
by  a  determination  to  keep  the  Negro  in  a  condition  as  near 
slavery  as  possible  and  probably  by  a  desire  to  keep  the  South 
united  with  a  view  to  ulterior  designs.  The  loyal  people  hav 
ing  seen  the  great  object  of  saving  the  Union  accomplished, 
will  not  contest  seriously  for  mastery  of  the  state.  They 
will  remain  loyal  to  the  great  Union  party  of  the  nation,  but 
in  a  subdued  and  discouraged  temper.  Many  will  yield  and 
go  with  the  vast  majority.  *  *  *  These  are  consequences 
almost  certain  to  follow  the  abandonment  of  the  loyal  people 
by  the  general  government."  People  of  the  present  day  know 
how  completely  this  prophecy  of  Mr.  Fletcher  has  been  ful- 


2  Mr.  Brownlow  was  a  native  of  Tennessee,  but  was  bitterly  opposed  to 
secession  and  for  this  he  was  expelled.  He  returned  just  after  the  war  and 
was  made  Governor  by  the  Reconstructionists. 


[138] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

filled  in  the  complete   banishment    of   the    Republican    party 
from  the  South.   But  all  these  things  worked  themselves  out 
by   perfectly    natural  and    even    normal    processes.     On    the 
question  of  slavery  the  South  was  solid  before  the  war  and 
since  the  war  everything  has  conduced  to  the  maintenance  of 
this  solidity.    Feeling  of  resentment  towards  a  victor  is  nat 
urally  to  be  expected  on  the  part  of  the  vanquished;  and  such 
feeling  in  connection  with  the  changed  status  of  the  colored 
people  in  their  midst,  tended  to  cause  all  southerners  to  unite 
in  a  common  fight  against  the  Republican  party  which  was 
looked  upon  as  being  responsible  for  the  whole  matter.     The 
permanent  occupation   of   the   South  by  the   Federal   militia 
was  out  of  the  question ;  still  this  was  about  the  only  means 
by  which  a  lasting  control  of  affairs  by  the  "Union  party,"  to 
which  reference  is  made  by  Mr.  Fletcher,  could  ever  be  se 
cured.    While  the  suffering  of  the  freedmen  could  not  be  en 
tirely  avoided  after  the  withdrawal  of  the  militia,  the  govern 
ment  determined  to  put  them  within  reach  of  such  assistance 
and  protection  as  being  clothed  with  citizenship  might  afford 
and  then  leave  them  to  work  out  their  own  destiny.    To  this 
end  Senator  Trumbull,  on  January  5,  1866,  introduced  a  bill 
providing  for  the  securing  of  civil  rights  to  the  freedmen  as 
the  first  step  in  the  direction  of  conferring  upon  them  the 
rights  of  citizens.     When    this    bill    came    up    for    discussion 
Senator   Salisbury   (Democrat),  of  Delaware,  endeavored  to 
have  it  so  amended  as  .to  prohibit  any  extension  of  the  suf 
frage,  desiring,  as  he  said,  to  test  the  sense  of  the  Senate  on 
the  question  of  the  right  of  Negroes  to  vote  and  contending 
that  any  measure  conferring  civil  rights,  carried  the  right  to 
vote  by  implication.  The  measure  passed  the  Senate  February 
2,  by  a  vote  of  33  to  12,  and  after  some  unimportant  amend 
ments,  was  taken  up  and  passed  by  the  House  March  13,  by 
an  overwhelming  majority.    President  Johnson  vetoed  it,  but 
the  measure  was  passed  over  his  veto.3 

The  Apportionment  Bill,  which  became  Section  2  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  as  it  came  from  the  House,  was  not 
satisfactory  to  the  more  radical  members  of  either  branch  of 

3.  See   U.    S.   Laws,   Thirty-ninth   Congress,   p.   316. 

[139] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Congress.  The  radicals  wanted  a  measure  so  sweeping  and 
conclusive  as  to  leave  no  room  for  judicial  quibbling  or  con 
struction.  In  opening  the  debate  on  it  in  the  Senate  on  Feb 
ruary  5,  Mr.  Sumner  attacked  the  whole  thing  as  a  compro 
mise  and  offered  the  following  in  support  of  which  he  made 
one  of  his  exhaustive  speeches  of  two  days'  length :  "Where 
as  it  is  provided  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  that 
the  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  state  in  the  Union 
a  Republican  form  of  government ;  and  whereas  by  reason  of 
the  failure  of  certain  states  to  maintain  governments  which 
Congress  might  recognize,  it  has  become  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  standing  in  the  place  of  guarantor  where  the 
principal  has  made  a  lapse,  to  secure  to  such  states  according 
to  the  requirements  of  the  guarantee,  governments  Republi 
can  in  form,  and  whereas  it  is  further  provided  in  a  recent 
constitutional  amendment  that  Congress  may  enforce  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  by  appropriate  legislation  and  it  is  im 
portant  to  this  end  that  all  relics  of  slavery  should  be  re 
moved,  including  all  distinctive  rights  on  account  of  color: 
Now  therefore  to  carry  out  the  guarantee  of  a  Republican 
form  of  government  and  to  enforce  the  prohibition  of  slavery, 
be  it  resolved  by  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  that  there  shall  be  no  oligarchy,  aristocracy,  caste  or 
monopoly  invested  with  peculiar  privileges  and  powers,  and 
there  shall  be  no  denial  of  rights,  civil  or  political,  on  account 
of  color  or  race  anywhere  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States  or  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  but  all  persons  shall  be 
equal  before  the  law  whether  in  the  court  room  or  at  the  bal 
lot  box.  And  this  statute,  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitu 
tion  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the 
constitutions  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwith 
standing."  After  this  effort  by  Mr.  Sumner,  test  votes  were 
useless  in  determining  where  he  stood  on  the  suffrage  ques 
tion.  Perhaps  it  would  be  too  much  to  say  that  Mr.  Sumner 
converted  any  of  his  colleagues  by  his  speech,  still  it  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  his  boldness  and  radicalism  tended  to 
stiffen  the  backbones  of  many.  Mr.  Henderson  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  Sumner  bill  to  the  effect  that  there  should 

[140] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

be  no  discrimination  in  political  rights  on  account  of  color 
which  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  37  to  10.  Mr.  Sumner's  whole 
proposition  failed  by  a  vote  of  39  to  8,  whereupon  he  sought 
to  have  passed  a  measure  forever  excluding  from  taxation 
any  who  might  be  disfranchised  under  the  provisions  of  the 
original  House  bill  for  which  his  measure  had  been  offered  as 
a  substitute,  but  his  efforts  in  this  direction  were  also  without 
support.  Mr.  Sumner  and  his  small  coterie  of  colleagues  were 
able,  however,  to  defeat  "the  main  bill  when  the  first  vote  was 
taken  upon  it  by  joining  with  the  Democrats,  the  vote  being 
25  in  favor  of  it  to  22  against  it ;  to  adopt  it  required  a  two- 
thirds  vote  in  the  majority.  On  reconsidering  the  vote  by 
which  the  measure  was  defeated,  Senator  Doolittle  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  effect  that  after  1870  the  apportionment 
should  be  made  according  to  the  number  of  male  electors  in 
each  state  over  the  age  of  21  years,  qualified  by  the  laws  of 
the  state  to  choose  members  of  the  most  numerous  branch 
of  Congress,  etc.  Some,  like  Senator  Sherman,  thought  well 
of  the  proposition  with  the  "1870"  stricken  out.  At  this  time 
Negroes  were  denied  the  right  to  vote  in  nearly  all  of  the 
states,  and  had  the  Sherman-Doolittle  proposition  carried  it 
would  have  been  necessary  for  the  several  states  to  have 
made  specific  provisions  extending  the  franchise  in  order  to 
have  avoided  the  effect  upon  their  representation.  The  con 
sequences  of  this  in  the  North,  however,  would  not  have  been 
seriously  felt  immediately,  as  in  many  parts  the  colored 
people  were  not  enumerated  as  a  part  of  the  basis  of  repre 
sentation,  while  the  South  would  have  lost  only  the  benefit 
of  the  constitutional  three-fifths  allowed  for  its  slaves.  At  all 
events  it  was  argued  that  the  measure  gave  the  several  states 
a  deliberate  choice  as  to  who  should  have  the  right  of  fran 
chise ;  this  was  the  main  objection  urged  against  the  Conklin 
proposition  as  it  came  from  the  House.  The  radicals  looked 
upon  it  as  a  step  backward,  inasmuch  as  each  state  already 
had  the  right  to  prescribe  the  qualifications  of  its  voters  and 
Negroes  were  recognized  as  neither  qualified  voters  nor  citi 
zens.  During  the  whole  long  debate  on  this  Apportionment 
Bill,  amendment  after  amendment  was  offered  and  a  suf- 

[141] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

ficient  number  of  germain  propositions  were  welded  together 
to  form  what  subsequently  was  adopted  as  a  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

Viewing  this  splendid  amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  it 
now  stands,  one  can  hardly  imagine  the  chaos  and  confusion 
out  of  which  it  was  evolved.  There  were  propositions  reflect 
ing  every  shade  of  opinion  and  theory  concerning  reconstruc 
tion,  from  efforts  to  permanently  disfranchise  prominent 
rebels  to  efforts  to  enfranchise  the  freedmen;  and  it  is  doubt 
ful  whether  any  other  part  of  the  Constitution  was  ever  so 
thoroughly  debated  before  its  adoption  as  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.  Among  the  propositions  in  this  connection  that 
caused  an  extended  debate  in  themselves,  was  a  series  of 
resolutions  offered  by  Senator  Stewart.  These  resolutions 
proposed  to  recognize  the  rebellious  states  as  having  fully 
and  validly  resumed  their  relations  to  the  government  when 
their  constitutions  should  be  so  amended  as  to  do  away  with 
all  distinctions  as  to  civil  rights,  etc.,  among  the  various 
classes  of  their  people  on  account  of  race  or  color;  second,  to 
repudiate  all  pecuniary  indebtedness  which  said  states  might 
have  incurred  or  assumed  in  connection  with  the  rebellion ; 
third,  to  yield  all  claims  to  compensation  for  the  liberation  of 
the  slaves ;  fourth,  to  provide  for  the  extension  of  the  elective 
franchise  to  all  persons  upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions, 
making  no  discrimination  on  account  of  color,  race,  etc.  The 
resolutions  also  set  forth  the  fact  that  the  states  were  respect 
fully  requested  to  incorporate  these  provisions  in  their  con 
stitutions  and  denied  any  intention  to  coerce  them  in  any 
manner,  the  matter  being  left  to  "the  good  sense  and  love  of 
country"  on  the  part  of  the  southern  people.  Previous  to  this 
effusion,  Senator  Stewart  had  been  going  the  furthest  in  his 
opposition  to  radical  reconstruction  and  in  putting  forth  his 
resolutions  he  said  that  he  desired  to  make  them  conform  to 
President  Johnson's  idea  of  reconstruction.  That  Senator 
Stewart,  in  this  movement,  reflected  many  of  the  ideas  of  Mr. 
Johnson  can  hardly  be  doubted.  Aside  from  his  numerous 
veto  messages,  Mr.  Johnson  gave  voice  to  his  opinion  in  re 
gard  to  the  situation  in  public  speeches  and  letters  to  his 

[142] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

friends  as  will  be  shown  by  a  letter  written  by  him  to  Gover 
nor  Sharkey,  of  Mississippi,  under  date  of  August  15,  1865. 
After  expressing  his  gratification  at  seeing  the  organization 
of  the  convention  called  by  Mr.  Sharkey  for  the  consideration 
of  the  matter  of  reconstruction  in  that  state,  the  President 
said:  "I  hope  you  will  amend  your  constitution  abolishing 
slavery  and  denying  to  all  future  legislatures  the  power  to 
legislate  that  there  is  property  in  man.  *  *  *  If  you  could 
extend  the  elective  franchise  to  all  persons  of  color  who  can 
read  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  English  and 
write  their  names,  and  to  all  persons  of  color  who  own  real 
estate  valued  at  not  less  than  $250,  and  pay  taxes  thereon, 
you  would  completely  disarm  the  adversary.  *  *  *  This 
you  can  do  with  perfect  safety  and  thus  place  the  southern 
states,  with  reference  to  free  persons  of  color,  on  the  same 
basis  as  the  free  states.  I  hope  and  trust  you  will  do  this,  and, 
as  a  consequence,  the  radicals  who  are  wild  upon  the  Negro 
franchise,  will  be  completely  foiled."4 

During  President's  Lincoln's  time  there  had  been  so  much 
talk  about  paying  for  the  loss  of  slaves,  etc.,  and,  indeed, 
some  actual  progress  made  in  that  direction,  that  it  was  now 
determined  to  pass  laws  against  making  such  payments  in 
future  and  also  specifically  repudiating  all  debts  incurred  by 
the  Confederacy  on  account  of  the  war  lest  these  obliga 
tions  should  be  saddled  upon  the  government  as  soon  as 
the  seceded  states  rejoined  the  Union.  Under  the  Act  of  Feb 
ruary  24,  1864,  by  which  it  was  provided  that  slave  owners 
who  were  loyal  to  the  Union  should  be  paid  bounty  money  for 
such  slaves  as  might  be  employed  in  the  Union  army,  etc., 
commissions  were  appointed  in  Delaware  and  Maryland  for 
the  settlement  of  such  claims.  The  Maryland  Commission  re 
ceived  3867  such  claims  and  awarded  the  sum  of  $250,750  to 
some  786  claimants,  25  of  whom  were  paid  a  total  of  $6,900. 
The  Delaware  Commission  awarded  $11,853,  on  43  claims,  but 
nothing  was  ever  paid  to  these  claimants.  Both  commissions 
had  since  been  dissolved;  the  Delaware  Commission  having 
been  dissolved  in  July,  1865,  and  that  for  Maryland  in  October 

4.  Globe,   First   Session  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  p.   1437. 

[143] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

of  the  same  year.  It  was  understood  in  some  quarters  or  at 
least  it  was  claimed  by  some,  that  in  order  to  keep  the  border 
states  in  line  with  the  Union,  or  at  least  neutral,  President 
Lincoln  had  given  them  reason  to  believe  that  they  should 
lose  nothing  on  account  of  slavery,  however  the  war  might 
terminate.  But  whether  there  was  any  assurance  given  slave 
holders  of  the  border  states  to  the  effect  that  they  should 
have  pay  for  the  loss  of  their  slaves  or  not,  it  is  true  that 
some  of  them  began  to  pass  laws  providing  for  payment  for 
emancipated  slaves  soon  after  the  Emancipation  Act  went 
into  effect.5 

Senator  Trumbull's  Civil  Rights  bill  having  been  reported 
during  the  pendency  of  the  Apportionment  Bill,  some  of  its 
main  features  were  incorporated  with  the  latter  and  passed  as 
a  part  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  which  was  adopted  in 
the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  31  to  11,  on  June  8,  1866;  the  House 
passed  this  important  measure  by  a  vote  of  120  to  32  on  June 
13,  1866.  The  Amendment  was  duly  enrolled  and  filed  with 
the  State  Department  on  June  16  and  on  the  same  day  Con 
gress  passed  a  resolution  directing  the  President  to  transmit 
copies  of  the  same  to  the  Governors  and  legislatures  of  the 
several  states  for  adoption  by  them,  which  they  did  in  due 
course  of  time.6 

Previous  to  the  Civil  War  all  colored  people  in  the  United 
States  who  were  not  regarded  as  property  were  regarded  as 
pariahs.  In  the  slave  states  they  were  considered  as  property. 
In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  where  to-day  the  laws  are  not 
only  made  but  administered  with  as  much  fairness  and  impar 
tiality  as  in  any  state  in  the  Union,  there  may  be  found  among 
its  old  statutes  some  laws  as  barbarous  in  their  discrimina 
tions  against  Negroes  as  were  ever  passed  by  South  Carolina.7 
So  it  appears  that  when  Pennsylvania  had  slaves  her  people 
generally  thought  and  acted  like  other  slave-holders.  And  so 
it  was  with  Mr.  Johnson  from  the  slave-holding  state  of 

5.  Laws   of  Maryland,   March   10,   1864. 

6.  The   Thirteenth   Amendment   was    presented   to   and   approved   by    President 
Lincoln,   but    this    was    neither   necessary    nor   strictly   in    accordance    with    cus 
tom.    The  point  was  raised  and  settled  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  1798.     For  full 
discussion  of  subject   se"e  Globe,  First  Session  Thirty-ninth   Congress,  pp.   3198, 
etc.    The   Fourteenth   Amendment   was   declared   in   force   on   July   28,   1868. 

7.  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  1712  to  1730,  by  Mitchell  and  Flanders. 

[144] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Tennessee.  Any  legislation  that  even  tended  to  destroy  the 
meanest  sort  of  discrimination  between  the  white  and  colored 
people  seemed  to  him  to  be  not  only  outrageous  but  insane. 
The  Trumbull  Civil  Rights  bill  was,  in  President  Johnson's 
view,  an  anomaly ;  and  after  it  was  passed  by  Congress  and 
was  sent  to  him  for  approval  he  did  not  hesitate  to  veto  it. 
After  expressing  his  disapproval  of  the  measure  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  an  invasion  of  the  rights  of  states  as  well 
as  being  discriminative  as  between  colored  Americans  and 
foreigners,  he  said:  "Yet  it  is  now  proposed  by  a  single  legis 
lative  enactment  to  confer  the  rights  of  citizenship  upon  all 
persons  of  African  desce'nt  within  the  extended  limits  of  the 
United  States,  while  all  persons  of  foreign  birth  who  make 
our  land  their  home  must  undergo  a  probation  of  five  years 
and  then  can  become  citizens  only  on  proof  of  their  good 
moral  character,  attached  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  well  disposed  to  the  good  order  and 
happiness  of  the  same.  The  first  section  of  the  bill  also  con 
tains  an  enumeration  of  the  rights  to  be  enjoyed  by  these 
classes  of  so  made  citizens  in  every  state  and  territory  of  the 
United  States.  These  rights  are  to  make  and  enforce  con 
tracts,  to  sue  and  be  parties  to  suits,  and  give  evidence,  to  in 
herit,  purchase,  lease,  sell,  hold  and  convey  property  real  and 
personal,  and  to  have  full  and  equal  benefit  of  all  laws  and 
proceedings  for  the  security  of  person  and  property  as  is  en 
joyed  by  white  citizens ;  so,  too,  they  are  made  subject  to  the 
same  punishment  and  penalties  in  common  with  white  citi 
zens  and  to  none  others.  Thus  a  perfect  equality  of  the  white 
and  black  races  is  attempted  to  be  fixed  by  Federal  law  in 
every  state  of  the  Union  over  the  vast  field  of  state  jurisdic 
tion  covered  by  these  enumerated  rights.  In  no  one  of  these 
can  a  state  exercise  the  power  of  discrimination  between  the 
different  races.  In  exercising  matters  of  state  policy  over 
matters  exclusively  affecting  the  people  of  such  state  it  has 
frequently  been  thought  expedient  to  discriminate  between 
the  two  races."  Thus  Mr.  Johnson,  by  the  grace  of  an  un 
happy  accident,  President  of  the  United  States,  expressed 
himself  with  frankness  and  innocent  simplicity.  When  his 

[145] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

message  was  announced  at  the  door  of  the  Senate,  Senator 
Wilson  immediately  moved  an  adjournment;  and  while  the 
motion  was  not  pressed,  it  was  intended  to  be  anything  but 
complimentary  to  the  President.  On  April  6,  the  Senate 
passed  the  measure  over  the  President's  veto,  by  a  vote  of 
33  to  15,  being  something  more  than  the  requisite  two-thirds 
majority.  The  House  voted  on  it  on  April  9,  when  it  was 
passed  by  that  body  by  122  to  41.  And  thus  the  Trumbull  Civil 
Rights  bill,  the  first  of  its  kind,  became  law,  the  President's 
objections  notwithstanding. 


[146] 


CHAPTER  XVII 


The  Ku  Klux  Outrages — Re-enslavement  of  Freedmen  Under  the 
Black  Codes — Discrimination  in  Courts  of  Law — The  Colorado 
Constitution  Attacked  by  Sumner — The  Admission  of  Tennes 
see — The  Admission  of  Nebraska. 

There  were  trying  times  in  the  South  for  the  freedmen  dur 
ing  the  years  1866-67.  The  fierce  cruelty,  always  characteris 
tic  of  slave-holders,  which  invested  the  southern  whites  with 
a  sort  of  picturesque  barbarity  had  been  intensified  by  the  re 
cent  conflict.  There  is  no  law  but  mob  law  under  which  men 
can  ever  be  held  as  slaves.  And  while  the  mob  in  the  South 
was  no  longer  recognized  as  legal,  still  it  remained  supreme. 
Slave-holders  for  so  long  oppressed  their  victims  with  terror 
and  were  terrified  by  those  whom  they  oppressed  that  they 
lost  all  notions  of  government  except  by  terrorizing.  The 
mob  government  of  the  late  slave  states  having  became  ille 
gal,  the  outside  world  first  began  to  count  those  falling  under 
its  sway  as  victims  of  outrages  in  about  1867.  Between  the 
Ku  Klux  Klan  and  the  Black  Laws,  the  South  was  not  only 
prepared  to  make  emancipation  appear  to  be  a  failure,  but  to 
show  it  up  as  the  greatest  crime  in  modern  history.  And  so 
it  would  have  been  had  Congress  sat  supinely  by  while  the 
freedmen,  turned  out  without  a  cent,  were  being  sold  into 
slavery  for  vagrancy  under  the  Black  Codes  or  were  left  to 
starve  by  the  roadside  if  unable  to  work;  and  while  young 
men,  veterans  returning  with  scars  and  wounds  received  in 
defense  of  the  nation,  were  being  pursued  by  night  and  by 
day  and  shot  to  death  one  by  one.  And  all  of  this  was  hap 
pening  after  the  passage  of  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth 
Amendments.  The  political  party  that  was  responsible  for 
emancipation  was  compelled  to  go  further  in  the  direction  of 
the  completion  of  its  work  on  penalty  of  being  branded  with 
infamy,  and  in  doing  this  it  was  compelled  to  make  auxiliaries 
of  the  freedmen.  While  it  is  doutbless  true  that  men  like 

[147] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

Sumner  and  Stevens,  who  championed  the  cause  of  the  op 
pressed  when  the  good  of  party  was  not  a  factor  and  when 
there  was  neither  promise  nor  hope  of  reward  other  than  the 
scorn  and  contumely  of  their  colleagues,  needed  no  com 
pelling  force  other  than  their  sense  of  duty,  nevertheless  it 
would  have  been  practically  impossible  to  have  gotten 
through  Congress  such  legislation  as  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  and  the  Civil  Rights  Act,  in  the  absence  of  such  compli 
cations  as  before  mentioned.  As  the  outrages  against  the 
freedmen  and  their  white  friends  in  the  South  showed  no 
abatement,  no  attention  being  paid  to  the  ordinary  laws  or 
the  decrees  of  Congress,  the  government,  on  January  8,  1866, 
decided  to  maintain  a  military  force  in  that  section  until  both 
Houses  of  Congress  should  decree  that  such  was  no  longer 
necessary. 

The  organization  known  as  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  represented 
the  climax  of  anti-Negro  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the  white 
people  of  the  South.  This  powerful  and  well  organized  mob 
was  but  the  outgrowth  of  older  organizations  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  creating  and  propagating  pro-slavery  sentiments 
and  extending  the  influence  of  the  slave  power,  in  spite  of 
Federal  laws.  And  so  the  Ku  Klux  outrages,  so  full  of  ingenu 
ity  and  replete  with  systematic  method,  did  not  spring  from 
hastily  devised  or  spontaneous  combinations  of  ruffians  who 
were  offended  because  of  the  freedom  and  citizenship  of  the 
colored  people,  but  were  carefully  planned  and  to  some  extent 
developed  by  these  older  organizations  which  coalesced  and 
assumed  a  new  name.  It  is  said  that  the  "Knights  of  the 
Golden  Circle,"  "Knights  of  the  Columbian  Star"  and  even  be 
fore  these,  the  "Knights  of  the  Lone  Star,"  organized  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  Cuba,  Mexico  and  Central  America,  with 
a  view  to  extending  slavery,  had,  at  the  time  of  the  war,  ex 
tended  their  lodges,  grips  and  passwords  over  all  the  South 
and  a  good  portion  of  the  northern  states  adjacent.1 

A  resolution  was  introduced  in  the  House  on  January  8, 
1866,  by  Mr.  John  A.  Kasson,  declaratory  of  the  meaning  of 
the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments,  and  making  it 


1.  American  Conflict. 

[148] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

unlawful  for  colored  people  to  be  treated  differently  from  any 
other  citizens.  In  connection  with  this  resolution,  he  had  read 
from  the  desk,  clippings  taken  from  certain  Maryland  news 
papers  as  follows  :"The  undersigned  will  offer  for  sale  at  the 
Court  House  door  in  the  city  of  Annapolis,  at  11  o'clock  A.  M. 
on  Saturday,  December  22,  1865,  a  Negro  named  John  John 
son,  age  about  40  years.  Said  Negro  was  convicted  at  the 
October  Term,  1865,  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Arundel  County, 
of  larceny  and  sentenced  to  be  sold.  William  Bryan,  Sheriff." 
"Baltimore,  December  24,  four  Negroes  convicted  of  larceny 
and  ordered  to  be  sold  by  Judge  Magruder,  at  Annapolis, 
were  sold  last  Saturday."^  The  discrimination  against  Negroes 
by  the  courts  in  the  South  was  then  and  still  is  notorious.3 
But  to  attempt  to  treat  of  or  to  follow  up  discrimination  by 
courts  against  colored  people  would  require  many  volumes 
and  one  would  find  himself  wandering  far  from  THE  QUES 
TION  BEFORE  CONGRESS. 

After  the  surrender  of  Lee,  the  Confederate  soldier  con 
tinued  his  open  war  against  the  freedmen  with  little  or  no 
abatement  of  ardor.  Colored  veterans  of  the  Union  army  who 
returned  home  in  search  of  their  wives  and  children  were 
especially  selected  as  victims  of  this  continued  warfare ;  their 
knocks  at  the  gate  of  their  former  owners  were  often  re 
sponded  to  with  a  bullet ;  and  the  families  of  those  who  left 
the  old  homesteads  were  pursued,  terrorized  and  often  mur 
dered.  The  following  extract  from  the  official  report  made  to 


2.  Globe,    First    Session    Thirty-ninth    Congress,    p.    345. 

3.  "When     the    Courts    wherein    we    are    practicing    were    opened    in    middle 
Georgia,  after  the  war,  it  was  idle  to  carry  any  case  of  a  Negro  before  a  jury 
of    whites.     We    witnessed    such    an    unbroken    succession    of    adverse    verdicts 
against    colored  litigants   that,   as   Jefferson   did   over   slavery,   we   trembled   for 
our  people  when   we   reflected  that   God  is  just   and  that   His  justice   would   not 
forever   sleep." — Reed's   Practical   Suggestions   on    Management   of  Law   Suits,   p. 
66.      "Comes    Out    of    Jail     After     Twenty     Years'     Imprisonement" — Special    to 
Philadelphia    Inquirer,    Atlanta,    Ga.,    August    22,    1897 — Twenty    years    ago    a    ro 
bust  young  colored  man,  named  George  Brown,  was  convicted  in  the  Courts  of 
Columbus    for    stealing   a    game    rooster   and   was    sentenced    to   twenty    years    in 
the  penitentiary.     To-day   he   is    free   again,  but   is   old   and    gray   and  bent   with 
infirmities.    He  has  been  to  his  old  home  in   Muscogee   County,  and   was   there 
given    a    reception    that    dazed    him.      His    daughter,    whom    he    left    a    baby,    has 
grown   up   and   is   married.    He   inquired   for   the   pastor  of  his   church   and   was 
told    that    he   has   been    dead   fourteen    years.     Others    whom    he    asked    for   had 
been  forgotten  and  there   was   no  one   to  care   for  him,  no  one  who  even   knew 
him.    He   talked   about   the   war  as   though   it   was   a   recent   event.     He   did   not 
know   who   was   President   of   the   United   States,   and   had   never   heard   of   Mc- 
Kinley.    He  asserts  positively  that  he  did  not  steal  the  chicken  and  he  wanted 
to  find  the  judge  that  sentenced  him  to  tell  him  so,  but  the  judge  was  dead." 
See  also  "The  Silent  South,"  by  G.  W.   Cable   (1895),  pp.   19-20. 

[149] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

Congress  on  the  subject  and  read  before  the  Senate  by  Sena 
tor  Wilson,  February  15,  1867,  will  give  some  slight  idea  of 
the  situation  :4  "From  April,  1866,  to  December,  1866,  the  re 
port  showed  as  follows :  In  Virginia,  murders  18,  outrages 
105;  North  Carolina,  murders  15,  outrages  86;  South  Carolina, 
murders  29,  outrages  64;  Georgia,  murders  79,  outrages  not 
reported.  There  were  also  reported  34  murders  in  Mississippi, 
19  in  Kentucky  and  84  in  Texas."  This  report  did  not  include 
the  outrages  committed  in  the  latter  states,  nor,  indeed,  but 
a  small  percentage  of  the  murders  and  outrages  committed 
in  the  South  during  the  short  period  which  it  undertook  to 
cover. 

Perhaps  no  word  ever  operated  with  more  potent  effect  nor 
figured  more  prominently  in  the  laws  and  statutes  of  any 
country  than  the  word  "white"  in  the  constitutions  and  laws 
of  the  various  states  of  the  Union.  This  term  was  not  in 
serted  in  these  instruments  in  contemplation  of  the  slaves 
who  were  held  in  subjection  by  force  and  not  by  law,  but  to 
affect  the  status  of  the  free  colored  people  so  as  to  make 
their  condition  as  nearly  like  that  of  the  slaves  as  possible. 
In  some  of  the  states  the  complexion  as  a  basis  of  the  law 
was  considerably  spun  out  and  refined;  this  was  especially 
the  case  in  Ohio,  where  all  having  not  more  than  one-eighth 
Negro  blood  might  vote.  Generally,  however,  those  known  as 
having  the  least  strain  of  Negro  blood  were  classed  as  Ne 
groes  and  the  very  name  "Negro"  was  sufficient  to  exclude 
one  from  all  rights  and  privileges  or  even  protection  under 
the  laws  of  most  of  the  states.  Among  the  first  demands 
made,  therefore,  by  the  radicals  in  Congress,  upon  the  states 
seeking  readmission  to  the  Union,  and  heralded  forth  as  a 
condition  precedent,  was  one  to  the  effect  that  state  constitu 
tions  should  recognize  no  discriminations  based  upon  the 
color  or  race  of  the  citizens.  But  notwithstanding  this  widely 
published  fact,  when  the  Territory  of  Colorado  presented  it 
self  for  admission  as  a  state  in  April,  1866,  its  constitution 
was  punctuated  with  this  objectionable  term  from  beginning 
to  end ;  the  word  "white"  seemed  to  have  been  used  early  and 


4.  Globe,  Second  Session,  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  p.   1376. 

[150] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

often  for  the  very  purpose  of  emphasis.  Senator  Sumner  and 
his  radical  colleagues  opposed  the  measure  with  great  vigor; 
all  of  them,  however,  did  not  base  their  opposition  on  the 
same  ground  as  that  of  Sumner,  who  declared  that  the  terri 
tory  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  come  into  the  Union  until 
its  people  should  "recognize  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence  ;"  some  others  based  their  opposition  upon  the  ground 
that  the  territory  was  too  sparsely  settled.  This  was  the  sec 
ond  time  the  Colorado  bill  had  been  before  the  Senate,  the 
matter  having  been  laid  aside  the  first  time.  The  motion  now 
was  for  the  reconsideration  of  the  motion  by  which  the  ques 
tion  had  been  laid  aside,  and,  the  Senate  having  agreed  to  re 
consider  it  by  a  decided  majority — there  having  been  only  14 
votes  in  the  negative — Senator  Sumner  offered  to  amend  the 
resolution  for  the  admission  of  the  territory  as  follows: 
"Provided,  That  this  Act  shall  not  take  effect  except  upon 
the  fundamental  condition  that  within  the  state  there  shall  be 
no  denial  of  the  elective  franchise  or  any  other  rights  on  ac 
count  of  color  or  race,  but  all  persons  shall  be  equal  before 
the  law,  and  the  people  of  the  territory  shall,  by  a  majority 
of  the  voters  therein,  at  such  places  and  under  such  regula 
tions  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  government  thereof,  de 
clare  their  assent  to  this  fundamental  condition,  and  the  Gov 
ernor  shall  transmit  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  an 
authentic  statement  of  such  assent  whenever  the  same  shall 
have  been  given,  upon  receipt  whereof,  he  shall  by  proclama 
tion  announce  the  fact ;  whereupon  without  any  further  pro 
ceedings  on  the  part  of  Congress,  this  Act  shall  go  into 
effect."  When  the  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for  on  this 
amendment  only  seven  Senators  voted  in  the  affirmative 
while  twenty-seven  voted  against  it.  There  being  no  other 
amendment  offered,  the  vote  recurred  on  the  main  proposi 
tion  as  originally  submitted  and  this  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  19  to  13  on  April  25,  1866.  President  Johnson  vetoed  the 
bill  on  the  ground  that  the  population  of  the  territory  did  not 
warrant  its  admission,  and  there  the  matter  rested  for  the 
time  being. 

On   the  6th    of    March    the    Reconstruction    Committee, 

[151] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

through  Mr.  Bingham,  reported  a  bill  for  the  readmis- 
sion  of  Tennessee,  which  had  adopted  a  constitution 
which  seemed  about  as  inconsistent  with  a  Republican  form 
of  government  as  the  Colorado  constitution ;  though  the 
preamble  set  forth  that  the  state  had  adopted  a  constitution 
Republican  in  form,  every  section  of  the  instrument  intended 
to  define  the  political  or  civil  rights  of  the  citizens  com 
menced  with  the  phrase  "every  white  man,"  etc.  It  is  true 
that  the  document  pretended  to  exclude  the  "brigadier"  gen 
erals  of  the  Confederacy  and  also  faintly  argued  for  the  dis- 
franchisement  of  the  "disloyal,"  still  it  blankly  denied  the 
right  of  franchise  to  every  colored  man. 

The  fact  that  this  constitution  was  unsatisfactory  to  some 
of  the  Reconstruction  Committee  only  tends  to  show  that 
those  who  favored  the  immediate  and  unconditional  exten 
sion  of  the  franchise  to  the  freedmen  were  in  the  minority; 
and  if  the  extension  of  the  suffrage  was  effected  too  early 
when  it  was  extended,  the  persistent  opposition  in  Congress 
on  the  part  of  those  who  objected  to  all  legislation  which  was 
intended  to  give  the  freedmen  reasonable  protection  against 
the  atrocities  then  being  perpetrated  against  them  in  the 
South,  is  responsible  for  it.  Then,  too,  there  was  needed 
some  assurance  that  the  men  sent  as  Representatives  from 
the  South  would  not  be  rank  secessionists  who  would  be  in 
clined  to  join  the  "Copperheads"  or  those  from  the  North  who 
supported  secession  and  thus  effectually  block  reconstruction. 
The  government  of  the  southern  states  for  the  time  being 
was,  therefore,  turned  over  to  "Carpet-baggers,"  who,  with 
the  assistance  of  the  freedmen  proceeded  to  reconstruct  the 
state  governments. 

The  report  of  the  Reconstruction  Committee  favoring  the 
readmission  of  Tennessee  with  a  constitution  denying  all 
rights  to  her  colored  citizens,  was  vigorously  attacked  by  the 
radicals.  Tennessee  was  the  first  of  the  seceded  states  to  offer 
to  return  and  there  was  a  feeling  of  great  satisfaction  in  the 
thought  that  Congress  had  at  last  struck  upon  a  basis  of  re 
construction  that  might  prove  to  be  generally  acceptable. 
While  the  matter  was  under  consideration  in  the  House  Mr. 

[152] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Stevens  endeavored  to  have  the  seceded  states  compelled  to 
adopt  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
their  readmission,  but  his  effort  failed.  When  the  matter  was 
taken  up  by  the  Senate  Committee  it  was  at  once  favorably 
acted  upon  and  reported  to  the  Senate.  In  its  report,  the  com 
mittee  dwelt  upon  and,  to  many,  seemed  to  magnify  the  loy 
alty  of  Tennessee,  notwithstanding  the  restrictions  mention 
ed  in  its  constitution.  . 

The  preamble  of  the  resolutions  so  highly  commending 
Tennessee  for  her  loyalty  was  at  once  attacked  by  Senator 
Sumner  for  its  falsity,  as  he  viewed  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
Senator  Sherman  was  enthusiastic  for  the  adoption  of  the 
whole  matter  as  presented.  Referring  to  Mr.  Sumner's  re 
marks,  Mr.  Sherman  said:  "I  know  my  friend  from  Massa 
chusetts  (Mr.  Sumner)  and  my  friend  from  Missouri  (Mr. 
Brown)  do  not  think  Tennessee  will  be  in  harmony  with  re 
lation  to  the  general  government  until  she  allows  Negroes  to 
vote.  We  come,  then,  to  the  bare  and  simple  proposition  that 
we  must  require  these  states  to  allow  colored  persons  to  vote. 
Are  we  prepared  to  make  that  issue?"  "I  am,"  retorted  Mr. 
Brown.  Mr.  Sumner  accomplished  the  defeat  of  the  adoption 
of  this  preamble  and  promptly  moved  the  following  amend 
ment  to  the  measure  as  his  answer  to  the  challenge  of  Mr. 
Sherman :  "Provided,  That  this  (Act  admitting  this  state) 
shall  not  take  effect  except  upon  the  fundamental  condition, 
that  within  the  state  there  shall  be  no  denial  of  the  elective 
franchise  or  any  other  right  on  account  of  color  or  race,  but 
all  persons  shall  be  equal  before  the  law;  and  the  legislature 
of  the  state  by  a  solemn  public  act,  shall  declare  the  assent  of 
the  state  to  this  fundamental  condition,  and  shall  transmit  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States  an  authentic  copy  of  such 
assent  whenever  the  same  shall  have  been  adopted,  upon  the 
prompt  receipt  whereof  he  shall,  by  proclamation,  announce 
the  fact,  whereupon,  without  any  further  proceedings  on  the 
part  of  Congress,  this  joint  resolution  shall  take  effect."  Only 
four  voted  for  this  proposition — Sumner,  Brown,  Pomeroy 
and  Wade.  And  when  the  vote  recurred  on  the  main  proposi 
tion  to  admit  the  state,  there  were  only  four  votes  in  the 

[153] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

negative — Sumner,  Brown,  Pomeroy  and  Wade.  The  meas 
ure  having  been  duly  approved  by  the  President,  July  24, 
1866,  Tennessee  once  more  became  one  of  the  states  of  the 
Union. 

The  Territory  of  Nebraska  now  applied  for  admission. 
Senator  Wade  had  charge  of  the  matter  and  in  reply  to  a 
question  by  Senator  Sumner  as  to  her  claims  for  being  recog 
nized  as  a  state,  said  that  there  was  nothing  to  which  objec 
tion  might  be  made  except  the  clause  in  her  constitution 
which  restricted  the  elective  franchise  to  white  men.  But,  as 
in  the  case  of  Tennessee,  the  territory  was  admitted  without 
being  required  to  change  her  constitution  in  respect  to  the 
suffrage.  Opposition  to  the  measure  in  the  House  was  about 
as  feeble  as  that  manifested  by  the  Senate ;  there  seemed  to 
have  been  no  decided  disposition  to  fight  and  but  little  more 
to  vote,  the  measure  having  been  passed  by  a  vote  of  62  to  52. 
There  was  no  great  eagerness  on  the  part  of  members  to  ac 
cept  Senator  Sherman's  issue  on  the  freedmen's  right  to  vote 
at  that  particular  time ;  they  wanted  to  see  which  way  the 
November  elections  were  going  before  taking  any  decided 
stand. 

The  territories  of  Nebraska  and  Colorado  were  the  last  to 
be  admitted  into  the  Union  carrying  evidence  in  their  funda 
mental  law  of  discriminations  directed  in  plain  language 
against  colored  people.  Soon  after  this  time  Congress  passed 
a  law  applicable  to  all  the  territories  in  the  Union,  prohibiting 
any  discrimination  on  account  of  color  in  the  use  of  the  elect 
ive  franchise.5 


5.  Became  law  January  14,  1867  by  lapse  of  time,  the  President  having  failed 
to  sign  it  or  to  return  it  to  Congress  with  his  disapproval. 


[154] 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

Destitution  Among  Negroes  Who  Followed  the  Army  to  Washing 
ton—Bill  for  Their  Relief— The  Founding  of  Hillsdale,  D.  C— 
Property  and  Funds  in  the  Hands  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau — 
Stevens'  Proposition  to  Give  Freedmen  Heads  of  Families  40 
Acres  of  Land — President  Johnson  Arraigns  Congress — Con 
gress  Takes  Official  Notice  of  the  President's  Attitude— The 
Status  of  Seceded  States  in  Elections  of  1868— Party  Platforms 
and  Candidates — The  Election  of  Grant — The  Fifteenth  Amend 
ment  and  Its  History — Sumner's  Substitution  for  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment — Sumner  Attacked  in  Debates  by  Colleagues — His 
Defense  of  Himself. 

During  the  winter  of  1867-8  there  was  great  suffering 
among  the  destitute  colored  people  in  the  District  of  Colum 
bia  who  had  come  from  all  parts  of  the  South,  following  the 
Federal  army  until  its  arrival  at  Washington.  When  the  army 
halted  for  the  grand  review  many  of  the  freedmen  who  had 
been  following  them  became  stranded  and  could  go  no  fur 
ther.  Not  only  was  the  spectacle  of  this  destitute  horde  of 
humanity  at  the  national  capital  annoying,  but  the  way  they 
crowded  themselves  into  old  barracks,  etc.,  for  shelter,  be 
came  a  nuisance  and  a  danger  to  the  public  health  and  morals. 
These  poor  freedmen  were  totally  ignorant  of  both  sanitary 
and  hygienic  laws ;  and,  indeed,  being  piled  upon  the  floors  of 
half  torn  down  buildings  and  old  barracks,  as  they  were,  was 
scarcely  regarded  as  a  hardship  by  many  who  had  often 
shivered  on  the  damp  dirt  floors  of  the  slave  pen.  Continuous 
life  under  such  conditions  in  a  city  like  Washington,  however, 
could  not  be  tolerated,  and  so  the  matter  was  speedily  taken 
up  by  Congress,  and  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  on 
February  25,  1868,  for  their  relief.  General  O.  O.  Howard  had 
a  large  sum  at  his  disposal  through  the  Freedmen's  Bureau, 
but  it  could  not  be  used  to  give  relief  in  this  particular  case, 
even  had  it  been  adequate,  in  view  of  the  constant  demands 
being  made  upon  his  appropriation  to  supply  other  thousands 
of  white  and  colored  people  whom  the  war  had  left  destitute 
in  the  South.  The  bill  for  relief  in  this  case  carried  an  appro- 

[155] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

priation  of  fifteen  thousand  dollars  to  be  disbursed  under  th« 
direction  of  General  Howard,  but  with  the  understanding  that 
those  receiving  help  should  render  some  service  in  return ;  in 
other  words,  the  scheme  was  to  give  employment  to  the  will 
ing  freedmen  and  large  numbers  of  them  were  accordingly 
set  to  work  on  the  streets  and  highways  of  the  city.  Com 
missaries  and  soup  houses  were  established  to  supply  food 
and  better  lodgings  were  secured. 

Another  happy  scheme  conceived  by  General  Howard  in 
this  emergency  was  the  founding  of  a  colony  of  colored  set 
tlers.  The  Bureau  had  already  come  into  possession  of  a 
large  tract  of  land  situated  on  the  northern  boundary  of 
Washington,  known  as  Smith's  farm,  where  it  had  estab 
lished  Howard  University.  General  Howard  now  acquired  a 
large  piece  of  land  situated  on  the  south  side  of  the  eastern 
branch  of  the  Potomac  for  his  colony  and  placed  Captain 
James  B.  Johnson,  a  most  rigid  disciplinarian  and  a  gentle 
man  of  singular  business  tact  and  ability,  in  charge  of  the 
laying  out  and  development  of  the  settlement,  which  was 
named  Hillsdale.  Mr.  Johnson  engaged  some  three  hundred 
freedmen  to  do  the  work,  but  the  contract  under  which  they 
were  employed  stipulated  that  each  man  should  apply  a  por 
tion  of  his  wages  to  the  purchase  of  a  homestead  in  the  vil 
lage  upon  which  he  had  to  construct  a  suitable  dwelling. 
There  was  to  be  indulgence  in  neither  drinking  nor  other  un 
becoming  habits  among  the  workmen  or  settlers  on  pain  of 
being  immediately  dismissed.  Mr.  Johnson  found  it  necessary 
to  discharge  many  of  his  workmen  under  these  Puritanic 
rules,  but  the  ranks  were  quickly  filled  by  others  willing  to 
submit  to  the  test.  By  this  sifting-out  process  the  best  ma 
terial  was  secured  for  the  colony  and  until  this  day  much  if 
not  most  of  this  property  is  in  the  hands  of  these  settlers  or 
their  descendants.  Some  of  these  men  became  the  best  known 
truck  farmers  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  at  present 
Hillsdale  is  one  of  the  most  prosperous  suburbs  of  Washing 
ton. 

According  to  official  reports  made  to  the  War  Department 
in  1867,  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  had  in  its  possession  or  under 

[156] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

its  control  272,231  acres  of  land  and  1119  pieces  of  city  prop 
erty,  besides  a  balance  of  $282,383  of  what  was  known  as  the 
Freedmen's  Fund,  consisting  of  back  pay  and  unclaimed 
bounty  money  belonging  to  colored  soldiers,  etc.  The  most  of 
the  land  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Bureau  on  account 
of  its  having  been  abandoned  by  owners  who  had  absconded 
during  the  war.  Under  the  Homestead  Act,  passed  in  1866, 
the  government  placed  millions  of  acres  of  land  at  the  dis 
posal  of  the  homeless  and  poor  at  a  nominal  price  per  acre, 
but  the  war  had  so  prostrated  affairs  that  many  of  the  white 
people,  even,  were  utterly  powerless  to  come  into  possession 
of  enough  ground  to  establish  farms  of  a  reasonable  size.  As 
for  the  average  Negro,  the  price  of  five  dollars  per  acre  put 
the  property  out  of  reach  as  effectually  as  though  it  had  been 
fifty  dollars. 

Early  in  the  spring  of  1867,  March  11,  Mr.  Stevens  intro 
duced  a  set  of  resolutions  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Confis 
cation  Act  of  July  17,  1862,  with  preamble  as  follows : 
"Whereas  it  is  due  to  justice,  as  an  example  to  future  times, 
that  some  proper  pain  should  be  inflicted  on  the  people  who 
constituted  the  'Confederate  States  of  America/  both  be 
cause  they  declared  an  unjust  war  against  the  United  States 
for  the  purpose  of  destroying  republican  liberty  and  perma 
nently  establish  slavery,  as  well  as  for  the  cruel  and  barbar 
ous  manner  in  which  they  conducted  said  war,  in  violation  of 
all  rules  of  civilized  warfare,  and  also  to  compel  them  to 
make  compensation  for  the  damage  and  expense  caused  by 
said  war,  therefore :  Be  it  enacted  that  all  public  lands  be 
longing  to  the  ten  states  that  formed  the  so-called  'Confeder 
ate  States  of  America,'  shall  be  forfeited  by  said  states  and 
become  vested  forthwith  in  the  United  States."  The  measure 
further  provided  as  follows :  Section  2,  that  the  President 
should  proceed  at  once  to  condemn  the  property  forfeited 
under  the  aforesaid  Act  of  July  17,  1862;  section  3,  that  a 
commission  of  appraisers  be  appointed  to  appraise  said  prop 
erty  ;  section  4,  that  the  land  so  seized  and  condemned  should 
be  distributed  among  the  slaves  who  had  been  made  free  by 
the  war  and  constitutional  amendments,  and  who  were  resid- 

[157] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ing  on  said  land  on  the  4th  of  March,  1861,  or  since:  to  each 
head  of  a  family  40  acres ;  to  each  adult  male  whether  head 
of  a  family  or  not,  40  acres ;  to  each  widow,  head  of  a  family, 
40  acres ;  to  be  held  by  them  in  fee  simple,  but  to  be  inalien 
able  for  ten  years  after  they  should  become  so  seized  there 
of.  Section  5  provided  for  the  raising  of  the  sum  of  fifty  dol 
lars  for  each  homesteader,  to  be  used  for  the  erection  of  a 
building  on  his  homestead;  and  that  the  further  sum  of  five 
hundred  million  dollars  be  raised  for  the  purpose  of  pension 
ing  the  veterans  of  the  Union  army.  The  bill  contained  sev 
eral  other  sections  dealing  with  the  subject  in  connection  with 
the  main  features  as  above  set  forth. 

Mr.  Stevens  called  up  this  measure  for  consideration  by  the 
House  on  March  19,  when  he  made  one  of  his  characteristic 
speeches,  brilliant  and  pungent ;  age  seems  never  to  have  had 
any  effect  upon  his  mental  vigor  nor  any  tendency  to  modify 
his  sharp  invectives.  Said  he:  "I  am  about  to  discuss  the 
question  of  pain  of  belligerent  traitors.*  *  *  The  pain  of 
traitors  has  been  wholly  ignored  by  a  treacherous  executive 
and  a  sluggish  Congress.  *  *  *  I  wish  to  makes  an  issue 
before  the  American  people  and  see  whether  they  will  sanc 
tion  the  perfect  impunity  of  a  murderous  belligerent  and  con 
sent  that  loyal  men  of  this  nation  who  have  been  despoiled  of 
their  property  shall  remain  without  remuneration,  either  by 
rebel  property  of  the  property  of  the  nation.  To  this  issue  I 
desire  to  devote  the  small  remainder  of  my  life.  *  *  *  No 
committee  or  party  is  responsible  for  this  bill.  Whatever 
merit  it  possesses  is  due  to  Andrew  Johnson  and  myself."  On 
the  whole,  this  was  one  of  Mr.  Stevens'  most  eloquent  efforts, 
though  he  delivered  a  great  many  speeches  during  his  stir 
ring  and  eventful  career  in  the  House  and  in  public  life  gen 
erally.  Mr.  Stevens'  blazing  speech  kindled  such  a  fire  that 
it  formed  the  text  for  subsequent  speeches  by  other  members 
for  some  time  afterwards  as  many  members  seemed  anxious 
to  get  on  record  with  a  speech  so  that  it  might  be  known  just 
how  they  stood  in  relation  to  the  matter,  apparently  afraid  to 
keep  silent  lest  it  might  be  said  that  they  agreed  with  the 
"Old  Commoner"  as  Mr.  Stevens  was  called.  This  bill  never 

[158] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

became  a  law,  but  it  was  not  because  Mr.  Stevens  did  not  "de 
vote  the  small  remainder  of  his  life"  to  the  issue.  He  was 
the  father  of  the  idea  and  the  sponsor  for  the  bill  which  faded 
and  fell  when  its  author  died  in  1868.  But  the  idea  of  provid 
ing  each  freedman  with  forty  acres  of  land,  etc.,  was  no  hoax 
or  ruse  on  the  part  of  the  Republican  party  to  decoy  the 
freedmen  into  that  organization  as  they  were  told  after  the 
scheme  had  failed.  And  the  discussion  relative,  to  the  matter 
also  touched  on  the  feasibility  of  providing  these  freedmen 
with  certain  farming  utensils  and  a  mule  or  a  horse. 

The  sarcastic  allusion  to  President  Johnson  made  by  Mr. 
Stevens  shows  how  continuously  the  breach  between  the 
executive  and  the  legislative  branches  of  the  government 
widened  until  each  department  held  the  other  in  contempt. 
In  his  annual  address,  President  Johnson  arraigned  Congress 
in  the  most  bitter  terms ;  he  even  went  to  the  extent  of  char 
acterizing  the  national  legislature  as  a  body  of  "deliberate 
Constitution  violators."  On  several  occasions  he  had  advised 
the  seceded  states  to  disregard  Congressional  enactments 
which  he  claimed  to  have  been  passed  by  the  usurpation  of 
power,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  do  what  he  could  to  cast  odium 
upon  Congress.  Acrimonious  thrusts  at  the  President  by 
members  of  Congress  in  their  speeches  had  been  frequent  for 
a  good  many  months  before  impeachment  proceedings  were 
formally  begun  when  all  seemed  to  have  taken  advantage  of 
the  occasion  to  vent  their  spleen.  Mr.  Johnson  was  a  life  long 
Democrat,  and  as  one  of  the  leaders  of  that  party,  had  spoken 
and  written  much  in  derogation  of  the  principles  and  profes 
sions  of  the  Republicans.  Old  letters  and  documents  calcu 
lated  to  detract  from  Mr.  Johnson's  popularity  were  dug  up 
and  used  with  telling  effect  in  the  debates ;  and  weapons  of 
this  sort  seemed  only  too  abundant. 

The  House  took  its  first  notice  of  the  hostile  attitude  of  the 
President  in  the  early  part  of  the  session,  December  16,  1867, 
when  Mr.  John  F.  Benjamin  introduced  a  resolution  with  a 
preamble  setting  forth  among  other  things,  the  fact  that  the 
President  had  recommended  the  repeal  of  all  the  reconstruc 
tion  laws  passed  by  Congress  and  declaring  that  the  House 

t'59] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

"would  not  take  one  retrograde  step  from  its  advanced  posi 
tion  in  promoting  the  cause  of  equal  rights,  nor  deviate  from 
its  fixed  purpose  of  protecting  all  men  as  equals  before  the 
law."  The  resolution  and  preamble  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
112  to  43.  But  even  the  ordeal  of  the  impeachment  trial,  from 
which  no  one  could  hardly  hope  to  emerge  entirely  undis- 
graced,  did  not  cause  Mr.  Johnson  to  weaken  in  the  least  in 
his  stern  opposition  to  the  course  of  Congress.  Game  to  the 
last,  he  fought  the  Republican  policy  to  the  end  of  his  term 
of  office  when  he  passed  into  an  unvenviable  obscurity.  It 
may  be  doubted  whether  Mr.  Johnson  rightly  deserved  all 
the  odium  that  has  been  heaped  upon  his  memory.  He  was 
hated  of  the  South,  not  because  of  his  record  as  President 
during  which  time  he  certainly  showed  that  section  a  rare  de 
votion,  but  rather  because  it  was  felt  that  his  loyalty  to  the 
Union  was  an  unpardonable  desertion  of  them  in  their  crisis ; 
he  was  hated  of  the  North  because  they  felt  that  he  deserted 
the  party  that  trusted  his  integrity  and  honored  him  with  the 
opportunity  through  which  he  became  President.  But  Mr. 
Johnson  never  pretended  to  be  anything  more  than  a  southern 
Democrat  who  espoused  the  cause  of  the  Union  without  go 
ing  further.  And  this  fact  was  generally  known.  He  was  as 
signed  the  part  of  villian  in  this  tragic  drama  and,  however 
important  and  well  played  his  role,  men  are  not  inclined  to 
give  him  their  applause.  The  cohesion  of  the  Republican  party 
just  after  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  when  the  War  Demo 
crats  were  returning  to  their  old  ranks  and  thousands  of 
others  who,  inclined  to  feel  that  the  Republican  party  had  ful 
filled  its  mission,  were  about  to  loosen  their  allegiance,  was 
due  more  to  the  powerful  force  of  Andrew  Johnson's  opposi 
tion  to  the  Republican  administration  of  affairs  than  to  any 
other  cause.  The  struggle  between  Mr.  Johnson  and  Con 
gress  convinced  the  people  that  the  Republican  party  still  had 
a  mission. 

The  year  1868  was  a  presidential  year,  and  the  re-establish 
ment  of  governments  in  the  seceded  states  had  just  begun.  In 
view  of  the  approaching  election,  Congress  passed  a  law  de 
priving  all  the  seceded  states  of  a  voice  in  the  electoral  col- 

[160] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

lege  that  might  not  have  reorganized  governments  by  the 
time  prescribed  by  law  for  choosing  electors.  The  Republi 
cans  nominated  Grant  and  Colfax  and  the  Democrats  nomi 
nated  Seymour  and  Blair.  The  issue  between  the  parties  had 
not  been  so  clear  and  well  defined  since  Lincoln  was  first 
nominated  on  a  clean  platform  against  the  extension  of 
slavery.  The  Republicans  on  the  one  side,  declared  that  the 
functions  of  the  states  lately  in  rebellion  were  dead  and  could 
not  be  revived  except  by  the  action  of  the  national  govern 
ment  through  which  readmission  had  to  be  regularly  sought. 
The  Democrats  on  the  other  hand,  claimed  that  these  states 
were  already  in  the  Union  and  as  such  were  entitled  to  all  the 
prerogatives  of  states,  that  the  ordinances  of  secession  were 
anulled  by  the  force  of  arms  and  the  failure  of  the  rebellion 
left  everything  as  it  had  been  before.  The  Republicans  stood 
for  equal  suffrage,  equal  rights,  and  equal  privileges  of  all  be 
fore  the  law;  the  Democrats  advocated  the  exclusion  of  the 
freedmen  from  all  civil  and  political  rights.  So  the  party  lines 
diverged  about  as  widely  as  can  be  well  imagined. 

Mr.  Blair,  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Vice-President,  so 
far  allowed  his  partisan  bitterness  to  override  his  judgment, 
as  to  state  in  a  letter  to  a  prominent  member  of  the  Demo 
cratic  Convention,  that  in  case  of  the  election  of  their  ticket, 
any  policy  devoted  to  the  destruction  of  the  governments  set 
up  in  the  South  by  the  reconstructionists  would  have  his  un 
swerving  support.  He  declared  that  since  the  large  Republi 
can  majority  in  the  Senate  would  forestall  the  possibility  of 
destroying  these  governments  through  any  legislative  pro 
cess,  he  was  willing  to  appeal  to  arms  for  the  accomplishment 
of  his  purpose.  This  letter  caused  the  greatest  excitement  and 
was  everywhere  quoted  throughout  the  campaign  and  used 
with  great  effect.  Perhaps  no  letter  was  ever  used  on  such  an 
occasion  with  such  potent  effect,  except,  perhaps  that  written 
by  Henry  Clay  when  he  was  a  candidate  for  the  presidency. 

The  Republican  party  was  overwhelmingly  victorious  at 
the  November  elections  (1868),  and  when  Congress  met  in 
December  the  Republicans,  whose  radical  platform  had  been 
so  thoroughly  indorsed  at  the  polls,  were  ready  with  many 

[161] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

propositions  for  the  adoption  of  a  Fifteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution.  Among  the  first  was  Senator  Sumner  with 
a  bill  for  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitu 
tion  abolishing  slavery  and  declaring  the  immunity  of  citi 
zens  and  guaranteeing  a  Republican  form  of  government  by 
securing  the  elective  franchise  to  those  deprived  of  the  same 
by  reason  of  race,  etc.  Another  proposition  submitted  by 
Senator  Henderson  was  in  the  following  language :  "No  state 
shall  deny  or  abridge  the  right  of  its  citizens  to  vote  and  hold 
office  on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition."  This 
was  amended  in  committee  and  reported  substantially  as  it 
now  stands  in  the  Constitution,  January  23,  1869.  Simultan 
eously  with  this  movement  in  the  Senate  Mr.  George  S. 
Boutwell  introduced  in  the  House  a  bill  for  the  extension  of 
the  franchise  and  the  enforcement  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment,  which  was  promptly  passed  by  that  body  on  Jan 
uary  30,  1869,  but  when  it  came  up  in  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Stewart,  under  instructions  from  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee  to  which  it  had  been  referred,  moved  to  strike  out 
all  after  the  enacting  clause  which  was  as  follows :  "The  right 
of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied 
or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  any  state  by  reason  of 
race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude  of  any  class  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  Congress  shall  have  power  to 
enforce,"  etc.,  and  insert  the  following:  "The  right  of  the  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  and  hold  office  shall  not  be 
denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  any  state  on  ac 
count  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude." 
Senator  George  H.  Williams  (Oregon)  wanted  some  measure 
simply  giving  Congress  the  right  to  abolish  or  modify  any 
law  that  might  be  made  by  any  state  in  restriction  of  the  suf 
frage  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  fearing,  as  he  said, 
that,  notwithstanding  precautions,  some  of  the  states  might 
find  a  way  to  discriminate  unjustly  and  the  aggrieved  would 
have  no  remedy.  Senator  Sumner,  on  the  other  hand,  at 
tacked  the  whole  scheme  looking  to  a  constitutional  amend 
ment  and  declared  that  in  view  of  the  passage  of  the  Thir 
teenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments  to  say  that  any  state 

[162] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

could  at  any  time  make  any  law  prohibiting  or  restricting  the 
right  of  suffrage  on  any  such  account  as  the  proposed  Fif 
teenth  Amendment  contemplated,  was  a  mockery:  "Nothing 
more  nor  less  than  a  recognition  of  the  old  State  Rights'  doc 
trine."  He  desired  Congress  to  pass  a  simple  Act  based  on 
these  two  amendments  to  take  immediate  effect.  The  Senate 
proposition  as  reported  by  Senator  Stewart  was  adopted  by 
that  body  by  a  vote  of  39  to  16,  but  when  the  matter  was 
taken  up  by  the  House  it  refused  to  concur,  whereupon  the 
Senate  declined  to  consider  further  the  House  measure  and 
resumed  the  consideration  of  the  Henderson  resolution  which 
was  under  discussion  in  that  chamber  at  the  time  the  House 
resolution  was  received.  The  Senate  forthwith  adopted  the 
Henderson  resolution  embodying  the  Fifteenth  Amendment, 
February  17,  and  sent  it  to  the  House  where  it  was  amended 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Bingham  by  the  insertion  of  the  words  "na 
tivity,  property  or  creed"  after  the  words  "on  account  of.'* 
The  Senate  having  refused  to  concur  in  this  change,  the  mat 
ter  was  sent  to  a  conference  committee  which  resulted  in  an 
agreement  to  report  the  measure  framed  as  it  now  stands  in 
the  Constitution.  The  House  adopted  it  on  February  25  by  a 
vote  of  145  to  44,  and  it  was  adopted  by  the  Senate  on  the 
next  day  by  a  vote  of  39  to  13.  None  of  the  series  of  the  war 
amendments  has  a  more  interesting  history,  perhaps,  than 
that  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment.  The  exigencies  of  the  times 
showed  the  necessity  for  the  adoption  of  some  such  measure, 
the  people  having  unmistakably  demanded  such,  as  the  result 
of  the  previous  election  demonstrated.  But  just  what  should 
be  the  scope  and  shape  of  the  measure  to  be  adopted  was  a 
matter  of  the  gravest  concern.  The  radicals,  under  the  leader 
ship  of  Mr.  Sumner,  wanted  an  Act  that  might  bear  imme 
diate  fruit  in  its  tendency  to  suppress  Ku  Kluxism,  etc.;  the 
conservatives  advocated  a  constitutional  amendment  in  order 
to  make  the  legislatures  of  the  various  states  participate  in 
the  responsibility.  In  advocating  the  adoption  of  an  Act  as 
against  a  constitutional  amendment,  Mr.  Sumner  said:  "The 
amendment  admits  that  under  the  national  Constitution  as  it 
is,  with  its  recent  additions,  a  caste  and  oligarchy  of  the  skin 

[163] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

may  be  set  up  without  any  check  from  Congress ;  that  these 
ignoble  forms  of  inequality  are  consistent  with  Republican 
forms  of  government ;  and  that  the  right  to  vote  is  not  an  ex 
isting  privilege  and  right  of  citizenship.  The  hesitancy  to 
present  the  amendment  is  increased  when  we  consider  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  ratification.  *  *  *  I  understand 
that  nobody  has  yet  been  able  to  enumerate  the  states  whose 
votes  can  be  counted  on  to  assure  ratification  within  any  rea 
sonable  time.  In  the  meantime  this  question,  which  can  not 
brook  delay,  which  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  to  complete  re 
construction,  should  be  settled  at  once,  is  handed  over  to  pro 
longed  controversy  in  the  states.  I  need  not  depict  the  evils 
which  might  ensue.  A  state  will  become  for  the  time,  a  po 
litical  cauldron  into  which  will  be  dropped  all  the  poisoned 
ingredients  of  prejudice  and  hate,  while  a  powerful  political 
party,  chanting  like  the  witches  in  Macbeth : 

'Double,  double,  toil  and  trouble, 
Fire  burn  and  cauldron  bubble/ 

will  use  this  very  amendment  as  the  puddling  stick  to  stir  up 
the  bubbling  mass."  Mr.  Sumner  quoted  many  decisions  of 
the  highest  tribunals  of  the  ancient  and  modern  worlds,  in 
cluding  even,  the  Dred  Scott  Decision  by  Taney,  to  show  that 
the  term  citizen  involved  all  the  rights  and  immunities  to  be 
enjoyed  by  any  and  all  persons  claiming  citizenship  of  a 
country.  Speaking  of  the  old  interpretations  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  Mr.  Sumner  said:  "State  rights  were  exalted.  Anything 
for  slavery  was  constitutional.  Vain  are  all  our  victories  if 
this  terrible  rule  is  not  reversed  so  that  State  Rights  shall 
yield  to  Human  Rights  and  the  nation  be  exalted  as  the  bul 
wark  of  all.  This  will  be  the  crowning  victory  of  the  war.. 
Beyond  all  question,  the  true  rule  under  the  national  Consti 
tution,  especially  since  its  additionel  amendments,  is  that 
anything  for  Human  Rights  is  Constitutional." 

Referring  to  Mr.  Sumner's  construction  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  Senator  Howe  (Michigan)  who  served  on  the 
Joint  Committee,  observed  that  the  idea  of  that  measure 

[164] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

carrying  with  it  the  right  to  vote  was  not  particularly  dis 
cussed,  whereupon  Mr.  Sumner  denied  the  correctness  of  the 
statement  with  emphasis,  and  in  reply  to  Mr.  Howe,  said: 
"The  Senator  is  aware  that  his  statement  was  denied  at  the 
time  and  the  measure  never  could  have  passed  the  Senate  had 
anybody  attributed  to  it  that  meaning.  The  Senator  knew 
well  that  as  it  came  from  the  House  it  was  susceptible  of 
such  an  interpretation ;  and  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  oppose  it, 
which  I  did  at  great  length  and  most  elaborately,  precisely  on 
the  ground  that  it  did  abandon  to  the  states  the  power  to  dis 
criminate  against  colored  persons.  I  refused  to  support  it  and 
associating  myself  with  others  in  that  refusal,  we  defeated 
it/'1 

Mr.  Sumner's  substitute  for  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was 
as  follows :  "The  right  to  vote,  to  be  voted  for  and  to  hold  of 
fice  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  anywhere  in  the  United 
States  under  any  pretense  of  race  or  color,  and  all  provisions 
in  state  constitutions  or  in  any  laws,  state,  territorial  or  mu 
nicipal,  inconsistent  herewith  are  declared  null  and  void."  The 
other  sections  of  the  bill  provided  penalties  for  violation  of 
the  Act.,  etc.,  and  gave  the  United  States  District  Courts  ex 
clusive  jurisdiction  of  all  offenses  against  it.2  Mr.  Sumner's 
proposition  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  47  to  9.  While  the  Fif 
teenth  Amendment  was  unsatisfactory  to  many,  if  not  most, 
of  the  great  leaders  in  Congress,  none  was  criticized  for  op 
posing  it  as  severely  as  Mr.  Sumner.  Whether  this  was  be 
cause  he  was  always  the  most  conspicuous  figure  in  all  such 
movements  or  because  he  so  often  made  his  colleagues  sore 
by  his  merciless  attacks  upon  anything  that  seemed  like  sham 
or  hypocrisy,  may  be  left  to  conjecture.  His  colleagues,  never 
theless,  seemed  always  glad  of  an  opportunity  of  charging 
him  with  anything  that  even  seemed  to  appear  inconsistent. 

When  the  bill  for  the  readmission  of  Virginia  was  under 
consideration  in  the  early  part  of  1870  many  seemed  unusually 
anxious  to  have  the  state  admitted  in  the  hope  that  it  might 


1.  Sec  Appendix  for  interpretation  of  Supreme  Court  as  to  what  Congress  in 
tended  on   this  point. 

2.  See   Appendix   for   construction   of   similar   Act. 

[165] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

facilitate  the  adoption  of  the  last  constitutional  amendments 
by  the  necessary  three-fourths  of  the  states.  Senator  Stew 
art  was  among  those  who  were  foremost  in  advocating  the 
admission  of  the  state,  while  Mr.  Summer  maintained  that  law 
and  order  had  not  been  sufficiently  restored ;  and  that  as  long 
as  the  lawless  element  remained  in  apparent  control  of  affairs 
the  state  should  not  be  readmitted.  On  January  12,  1870,  a 
very  lengthy  memorial,  purporting  to  have  come  from  the 
loyal  Republicans  of  Virginia  and  disclosing  a  very  discourag 
ing  state  of  affairs,  was  handed  to  Mr.  Suniner,  who  sent  it  to 
the  Clerk's  desk  to  be  read.  Among  other  things  it  stated  that 
the  memorialists  had  appealed  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  of 
the  Senate,  but  had  not  been  heard;  that  a  majority  of  the 
State  Legislature  of  Virginia  had  been  elected  through  fraud ; 
that  murder  and  outrages  of  every  sort  were  being  perpe 
trated  upon  the  loyalists  of  the  state  because  of  their  loyalty ; 
that  when  arrests  were  made,  which  were  not  frequent,  rebel 
juries  would  immediately  acquit  the  guilty  parties ;  that  it  was 
openly  asserted  in  the  canvass  that  the  rebel  party  supported 
the  expurgated  constitution  only  for  the  sake  of  gaining  ad 
mission  to  the  Union,  etc.,  etc.  Upon  hearing  this  memorial 
read  Senators  Stewart  and  Nye,  and  especially  the  former, 
very  bitterly  denounced  the  memorialists  who,  of  course,  were 
denfended  by  Senator  Sumner.  During  the  discussion  that 
arose  over  the  matter,  Senator  Stewart  carefully  selected 
disjointed  paragraphs  from  Senator  Sumner's  speech  on 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment  before  referred  to,  and  cutting 
ly  arraigned  him  for  his  course  in  connection  with  that  meas 
ure.  A  couple  of  days  before  this,  in  the  debate  on  the  Vir 
ginia  bill,  Mr.  Stewart  asserted  that  Mr.  Sumner  did  not  vote 
for  the  Fifteenth  Amendment;  knowing  how  seldom  he  was 
absent  and  how  he  would  have  voted  had  he  been  present, 
Mr.  Sumner  corrected  Senator  Stewart's  assertion  as  erron 
eous.  It  turned  out,  however,  that  Mr.  Sumner  was  in  error 
as  he  was  absent  when  the  final  vote  on  the  Fifteenth  Amend 
ment  was  taken.  Mr.  Trumbull  also  joined  Mr.  Stewart  in  a 
very  severe  attack  on  Mr.  Sumner  for  opposing  the  admis 
sion  of  Virginia.  In  vindicating  himself  against  these  attacks 

[166] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

Mr.  Sumner  revealed  much  of  the  inside  history  of  the  whole 
reconstruction  movement  and  told  of  many  things  that  took 
place  in  committees  of  which  no  record  is  made.  He  re 
counted  at  length  how  Senator  Trumbull  had  always  opposed 
anti-slavery  measures  before  the  war  and  radical  reconstruc 
tion  afterwards ;  how  he  had  championed  the  cause  of  Presi 
dent  Johnson  during  the  impeachment  trial,  etc.,  etc.  In  mak 
ing  a  thorough  search  of  the  record  in  order  to  impeach  the 
consistency  of  Mr.  Sumner,  it  appeared  that  Mr.  Trumbull  had 
been  able  to  find  two  important  Republican  measures  for 
which  Mr.  Sumner  had  not  voted,  having  been  absent  from 
his  seat  when  the  final  vote  was  taken  in  each  case ;  these 
were  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  and  another  measure  passed 
earlier  in  the  struggle  known  as  the  "Act  to  provide  for  more 
efficient  government  of  the  rebel  states."  In  this  address  vin 
dicating  himself,  Mr.  Sumner,  among  other  things  said:  "This 
assault  to-day  compels  me  to  make  a  statement  which  I  never 
supposed  I  should  be  called  upon  to  make.  I  make  it  now  with 
hesitation,  but  rather  to  show  his  (Trumbull's)  own  course 
rather  than  mine.  Sir,  I  am  the  author  of  the  provision  in  that 
Act  conferring  the  suffrage,  and  when  I  brought  it  forward, 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  was  one  of  my  opponents ;  then  as 
now.  Senators  who  were  there  remember  well  that  the  whole 
subject  was  practically  taken  out  of  the  Senate  for  the  time, 
to  a  caucus  of  the  Republican  party  where  a  committee  was 
created  to  whieh  all  pending  measures  of  reconstruction  were 
referred.  *  *  *  The  Senator  from  Ohio  was  chairman. 
In  that  committee  the  reconstruction  bill  was  debated  and 
matured  word  for  word  and  sentence  by  sentence,  and  then 
and  there  I  moved  that  we  should  require  the  suffrage  of  all 
persons  without  distinction  of  color  in  the  organization  of  the 
new  governments  and  in  all  the  constitutions  to  be  made.  In 
taking  this  position  at  the  time  I  was  only  following  the 
proposition  I  had  made  in  the  Senate  more  than  two  years  be 
fore,  which  I  had  urged  upon  the  people  in  an  elaborate  ad 
dress  before  a  political  convention  in  Massachusetts,  which  I 
again  upheld  in  an  elaborate  address  of  two  days  in  this 
chamber,  and  which  from  the  very  beginning  I  had  never  lost 

[167] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

sight  of  from  my  mind  or  heart.  It  was  natural  that  I  should 
press  it  in  committee,  but  I  was  overruled,  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  opposing  me  with  his  accustomed  determination.  The 
chairman  observed  my  discontent  and  said:  'You  may  renew 
your  motion  in  the  caucus.'  I  said  I  would  do  so,  stating  that 
I  had  been  voted  down  in  the  committee,  but  would  appeal 
from  the  committee  to  the  caucus.  My  colleague  (Mr.  Wil 
son)  who  sits  in  front  of  me,  shouted:  'Do  so,  The  report  of 
the  committee  will  leave  a  great  question  open  to  debate  on 
every  square  mile  of  the  South.  We  must  close  the  question 
up/  Another  Senator,  who  is  not  here  now,  Mr.  Gratz  Brown, 
cried  out  earnestly,  Tush  it  to  a  vote,  we  will  stand  by  you.' 
I  needed  no  such  encouragement  for  my  determination  was 
fixed.  There  sat  the  Senator  from  Illinois,  sullen  in  his  oppo 
sition.  I  pushed  it  to  a  vote  and  it  was  carried  by  two  major 
ity,  Senators  rising  to  be  counted.  My  colleague,  in  his  joy  on 
that  occasion,  cried  out :  'This  is  the  greatest  vote  that  has 
ever  been  taken  on  this  Continent/  He  felt,  I  felt,  we  all  felt 
that  the  question  of  suffrage  was  secure.  I  am  compelled  to 
this  statement  by  the  assault  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois.  I 
had  no  disposition  to  make  it.  I  don't  claim  anything  for  my 
self,  I  did  only  my  duty.  *  *  *  The  Senator  read  from 
the  Globe  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  and  exulted  be 
cause  my  name  was  not  there.  Is  there  any  Senator  in  this 
chamber  who  is  absent  from  his  seat  less  than  I  am?  There 
was  a  reason  for  my  absence  on  that  occasion.  I  had  left  this 
chamber  at  midnight,  fatigued,  not  well,  knowing  that  the 
great  cause  was  assured  notwithstanding  the  opposition  of 
the  Senator  from  Illinois ;  knowing  that  at  last,  the  right  of 
the  colored  people  to  suffrage  was  recognized.  I  had  seen  it 
placed  in  the  bill  on  my  motion  safe  against  the  assaults  of 
the  Senator  from  Illinois.  Why  should  I,  fatigued  and  not 
well,  stay  until  morning  to  swell  the  large  and  ascertained 
majority  which  it  was  destined  to  receive?  I  had  no  occasion 
to  make  up  any  such  record.  You  know  my  fidelity  to  this 
cause.  Reconstruction,  even  with  the  suffrage,  was  defective. 
More  was  needed.  There  should  have  been  a  system  of  free 
schools,  greater  protection  to  the  freedmen,  all  of  which  I 

[168] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

sought  in  vain  to  obtain  in  committee.  *  *  *  Pained  by 
the  failure  and  feeling  that  there  was  nothing  more  for  me 
to  do,  after  midnight,  I  retired." 

From  the  time  of  the  Revolution  down  to  about  1820,  when 
the  anti-slavery  agitation  received  such  impetus  from  the 
Missouri  controversy,  and  was  taken  up  by  Garrison  and  his 
school  of  Abolitionists,  free  colored  people  were  allowed  to 
vote  in  many  states  of  the  North  as  well  as  in  several  of  the 
southern  states.3  Many  of  the  northern  states,  in  the  consti 
tutions  which  they  adopted  just  after  the  Revolution,  took  no 
notice  of  the  colored  people  at  all,  but  simply  made  provision 
for  their  citizens  generally,  as  was  done,  for  instance,  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania.  But  between  1820  and  1850  nearly  all 
of  the  states  formulated  new  constitutions  with  specific  pro 
visions  excluding  Negroes  from  the  right  to  exercise  the  right 
of  suffrage  in  obedience  to  the  demands  of  the  South. 


3.  See 


opinion  of  Gaston,  J.,  in  State  vs.  Manuel  4  Dev.  &  Bat.  20  (N.  C.  Su- 
xmrt),  also  Mr.  Justice  Curtis'  dissenting  opinion  in  Dred  Scott  case- 
*>*-Vi  nf  w  T  wjitev  r:ir«K*>  Tn««>  97  !««;.  *ior.  ni^H;«r»a  ->  *n 


preme  Court),  also   Mr.  Justice  Curtis'   dissenting  opinion   in  Dred   Sc< 
also  speech  of  W.  J.  Willey,  Globe,  June  27,  1866;  also  Giddings,  p.  69 


[169] 


CHAPTER  XIX 

Negroes  in  Politics— Anti-Negro  Election  Riots— The  Admission  of 
Alabama  and  Arkansas — The  Omnibus  Bill — Outrages  of  Ku 
Kluxism  Investigated — The  Adoption  of  the  Fifteenth  Amend 
ment  a  Condition  Precedent  for  Admission  of  Other  States — 
The  Virginia  Bill — Admission  of  State — The  Admission  of 
Mississippi — Revels,  the  First  Negro  'Senator,  Seated. 

By  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  the  right  of  suffrage  was 
conferred  upon  the  freedmen  in  language  so  clear  that  no 
construction  by  any  court  was  needed.  Epoch-making  events 
had  moved  rapidly.  History  may  somewhere  record  where  a 
people  had  risen  up  and  seized  their  rights  and  at  once  en 
tered  upon  the  enjoyment  of  them,  but  nowhere  do  we  find 
where  so  many  privileges  have  been  conferred  all  of  a  sudden 
and  practically  without  warning  as  in  the  case  of  the  freed 
men  in  the  United  States.  Between  1859  and  1869  the  colored 
people  of  the  United  States  were  swept  through  social 
changes  and  experiences,  the  wilderness  that  lies  between  the 
Egypt  of  slavery  and  the  Promised  Land  of  full  citizenship, 
that  generally  detain  the  pilgrims  of  a  race  for  generations. 
But  as  the  Negroes  had  been  summoned  as  allies  by  those  who 
were  struggling  to  save  the  Union  on  the  field  of  battle,  so  it 
became  necessary  to  arm  them  with  the  ballot  in  order  to  ob 
tain  their  aid  in  the  struggle  to  reconstruct  the  laws  of  the 
nation  on  the  floor  of  Congress.  And  they  were  immediately 
put  into  harness,  as  it  were,  where  they  have  ever  since 
played  an  important  part  in  American  politics,  and  where 
their  influence  began  to  be  actively  felt  in  1868.  On  Feb 
ruary  25,  1868,  Congress  passed  an  act  to  provide  for 
the  facilitation  of  the  adoption  of  state  constitutions 
where  such  had  been  annulled,  which  Act  was  in  the 
nature  of  a  supplement  to  the  General  Enabling  Act  of 
March  2,  1867.  It  provided  that  all  persons  in  a  state 
duly  registered  as  voters  ten  days  before  election  day  should 
be  permitted  to  vote  in  the  district  wherein  they  might  reside. 

[170] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Under  this  Act,  the  so-called  loyal  people  in  the  disaffected 
states,  many  of  whom  were  necessarily  "Carpet-baggers,"  be 
gan  to  formulate  constitutions.  Although  there  had  been  for 
some  months  previous  a  general  movement  in  the  South  ap 
parently  in  the  direction  of  returning  to  the  Union,  it  was 
heavy  and  slow  and  gave  every  evidence  of  the  hard  strain 
under  which  the  people  were  laboring.  Everything  had  been 
done  under  pressure  of  the  national  government  and  wherever 
this  pressure  was  removed  or  even  lightened,  matters  at  once 
got  out  of  adjustment.  The  people  of  Alabama,  having  held 
a  convention,  formed  a  constitution  which  was  submitted  to 
the  voters  for  ratificatipn  in  February,  1868.  Just  previous  to 
this  time  many  of  the  troops  stationed  in  that  section  to  pre 
serve  order  had  been  removed,  and  as  a  result,  those  opposed 
to  the  adoption  of  the  new  constitution  took  forcible  posses 
sion  of  the  polls  and  drove  the  reconstructionists  away  with 
out  allowing  them  to  vote.  The  convention  that  formed  the 
constitution  met  in  the  previous  August  and  was  composed  of 
radical  Republicans,  but  the  majority  of  the  electors  depend 
ed  upon  to  support  the  measure  when  it  came  to  be  voted 
upon  were  freedmen  who  were  more  or  less  easily  intimi 
dated  by  the  threats  or  scowls  of  their  late  masters.  Nor  were 
there  merely  meaningless  threats  as  the  following  extracts 
from  reports  received  from  officials  of  that  region  will  tend 
to  show.1  "Union  men  of  this  county  will  have  to  leave, 
*  *  *  mob  law  prevails.  Freedmen  are  discharged  from 
employment  and  driven  to  the  woods  because  they  voted  for 
the  constitution.  Organizations  are  formed  to  drive  the  Union 
men  from  the  county.  Children  are  proscribed  from  the 
schools."  Another  official  reported  as  follows :  "Voters  were 
told  that  if  they  voted  for  the  constitution  they  would  be 
driven  away;  *  *  *  all  the  votes  cast  have  been  by  men 
of  unusual  nerve  in  the  face  of  the  most  menacing  violence." 
The  constitution  of  the  state  had  been,  indeed,  radically  re 
constructed  by  that  convention.  It  was  the  ideal  Republican 
brand  and  such  as  would  take  with  only  the  truly  reconstruct- 


1.  Globe,   Second   Session    Fortieth   Congress,   p.    598,   etc.,   presented   by   Con 
gressman  Peters. 


[171] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ed  southerner  and  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  it  was  all  that 
even  he  could  conscientiously  swallow.  Before  being  allowed 
to  register  each  voter  was  required  to  take  an  oath  to  sup 
port  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws  of 
Alabama,  to  abrogate  the  rights  of  secession,  to  accept  the 
civil  and  political  equality  of  all  men  and  never  endeavor  to 
deprive  any  person  of  any  civil  right,  privilege  or  immunity 
on  account  of  color  or  race  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 
The  war  was  now  three  years  past  and  as  long  as  any  state 
was  out  of  the  Union  the  whole  country  must  necessarily  re 
main  in  an  unsettled  condition.  But  the  opposing  element  was 
plainly  working  to  keep  things  in  this  condition  until  they 
could  be  adjusted  on  a  basis  of  their  own  fixing.  The  Act 
under  which  reconstruction  was  being  developed  passed 
March  2,  1867,  provided  for  the  calling  of  conventions  to  for 
mulate  constitutions  which  were  to  be  ratified  by  a  majority 
of  the  votes  of  the  qualified  electors.  The  registration  lists 
were  used  as  a  basis  upon  which  to  determine  this  majority. 
All  made  it  a  point  to  register  and  qualify,  but  when  the  elec 
tion  came  off  the  opposition  party,  in  order  to  make  the  re 
turns  show  that  the  result  was  not  the  action  of  the  majority 
of  the  qualified  electors,  would  neither  vote  themselves  nor 
allow  others  to  vote.  The  Reconstruction  Committee  to  which 
the  proposition  to  admit  the  state  was  referred,  reported  that 
the  state  should  be  entitled  to  admission  on  condition  that  the 
"constitution  of  Alabama  shall  never  be  changed  or  amended 
so  as  to  deprive  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  of  the  right  to  vote  who  are  entitled  to  vote  by  the 
constitution  hereby  recognized."  The  committee  further  bound 
them  to  all  the  radical  provisions  of  their  compact.  There  is 
no  doubt  whatever  that  all  the  states  might  have  come  in 
under  conditions  as  easy  and  as  simple  as  those  imposed  upon 
Tennessee  whose  reconstructed  constitution  so  sharply  dis 
criminated  against  the  colored  people  had  not  the  stubborn 
disposition  of  the  southern  whites  forced  upon  Congress  the 
necessity  of  placing  the  political  power  of  that  section  into 
the  hands  of  the  freedmen  and  "Carpet-baggers"  who  virtu 
ally  dragged  the  states  back  into  the  Union.  By  the  shrewd- 

[172] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ness  of  the  Democrats  and  the  stupidity  of  the  Senate,  as  Mr. 
Stevens  characterized  it,  the  admission  of  Alabama  at  this 
time  was  defeated  because  it  was  shown  that  a  majority  of 
the  qualified  voters  had  not  ratified  its  new  constitution.  Mr. 
Stevens,  in  the  first  place,  urged  upon  Congress  the  necessity 
of  admitting  the  states  upon  the  ratification  of  their  constitu 
tions  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  instead  of  requiring  rati 
fication  by  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters.  The  Alabama 
constitution,  therefore,  was  recognized  as  provisional  only 
and  as  such  was  allowed  to  go  into  temporary  operation  and 
the  legislature  elected  thereunder  was  authorized,  when  it 
might  see  fit,  to  resubniit  it  to  the  people.  But  there  happened 
to  be  no  great  loss  or  setback  in  the  matter  because  the  state 
was  admitted  a  short  while  later  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Omnibus  Bill. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1868  Arkansas  called  a  convention  and 
formulated  a  constitution  for  submission  to  her  people.  This 
constitution  was  about  as  drastic  in  its  requirements  as  that 
of  Alabama  just  referred  to ;  in  fact  it  was  practically  a  re 
plica  of  the  latter.  The  document  was  fiercely  attacked  by  the 
Democrats  in  Congress.  It  was  contended  that  such  humiliat 
ing  conditions  should  not  be  imposed  upon  a  state  seeking  ad 
mission,  that  the  specifications  in  the  test  oath  were  utterly 
at  variance,  not  only  with  the  teaching  and  practices  of  the 
white  people  of  America  but  with  the  civilized  world ;  in  short 
the  same  arguments  were  used  that  have  been  employed  in 
matters  of  this  kind  since  Pickney  pleaded  for  the  rentention 
of  slavery  in  the  colonies.  The  people  of  Arkansas  ratified  this 
constitution,  however,  by  a  majority  of  about  thirteen  hun 
dred  and  it  is  said  that  the  majority  would  have  been  much 
larger  had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that  the  voters  were  re 
quired  to  reside  in  their  districts  for  too  long  a  time  before 
being  allowed  to  register.  The  election  to  ratify  or  reject  the 
constitution  took  place  about  the  middle  of  March,  1868,  and 
the  bill  for  admission  of  the  state  came  up  on  May  8,  when 
the  Reconstruction  Committee  which  reported  it  had  added  a 
clause  to  the  effect  that  "this  constitution  shall  never  be  so 
changed  or  amended  as  to  deprive  any  citizen  or  class  of  citi- 

[173] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

zens  of  the  right  to  vote  who  are  entitled  to  vote  under  the 
constitution  herein  recognized."  The  whole  matter  was  at 
tacked  when  it  came  up  in  the  Senate,  on  the  ground  that  in 
asmuch  as  the  state  had  adopted  a  constitution  Republican  in 
form  and  the  whole  proceedings  had  taken  place  under  the 
General  Enabling  Act  of  March  2,  1867,  all  that  was  necessary 
had  been  done,  and  so  Senator  Terry  (Connecticut)  moved 
to  strike  out  all  conditions  precedent  so  as  to  provide  simply 
for  the  admission  of  the  state  on  equal  terms  with  the  other 
states.  This  motion  was  defeated  by  only  one  vote — 20  yeas 
to  21  nays.  Senator  Drake  (Missouri)  offered  an  amendment 
to  the  effect  that  "there  should  never  be  any  denial  of  the  free 
exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  on  account  of  race,  color, 
etc.,  which  was  agreed  to  by  a  vote  of  26  to  14,  and  the  Senate 
passed  the  bill  practically  in  this  shape  on  June  1.  The 
House  refused  to  concur  in  the  Senate  amendments  and  the 
matter  was  referred  to  a  conference  committee  which  report 
ed  the  measure  back  essentially  as  it  came  from  the  House 
originally  with  the  addition  of  a  clause  permitting  the  state 
to  change  the  time  and  place  as  to  residence  of  voters.  Both 
Houses  adopted  the  report  and  under  such  a  constitution  Ar 
kansas  was  taken  back  into  the  Union. 

From  time  to  time  resolutions  were  offered  providing  for 
the  admission  of  some  state  all  of  which  were  referred  to  the 
Reconstruction  Committee  for  report.  About  the  middle  of 
May  the  committee  reported  a  bill  known  as  the  "Omnibus 
Bill,"  for  the  admission  of  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia  and  Louisiana.  The  preamble  set  forth  that  these 
states  had  adopted  constitutions  Republican  in  form  and  were, 
therefore,  entitled  to  admission,  etc.  These  constitutions  were 
all  essentially  the  same  as  the  Arkansas  compact.  The  bill 
met  with  the  usual  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Democrats, 
who  declared  that  Congress  was  assuming  undelegated  power 
and  the  action  was  unconstitutional ;  the  attack  upon  the  test 
oath  was  particularly  acrimonious.  The  committee  had  placed 
in  the  bill  a  clause  against  changing  or  amending  the  consti 
tutions  like  that  which  the  original  Arkansas  bill  carried; 
Judge  Bingham  moved  to  strike  this  out  on  the  ground  that  it 

[174] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

perpetuated  the  conditions  of  franchise  as  they  then  stood, 
and  it  might  at  some  time  become  expedient  for  the  public 
good  to  change  them.  He  offered  as  a  substitute  for  that 
clause  the  following:  "That  civil  and  political  rights  shall  be 
forever  equally  secured  in  said  states  to  all  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  resident  therein,  in  so  far  as  is  now  provided  in 
said  constitutions  respectively."  The  House  accepted  this 
amendment  after  having  made  some  slight  but  unimportant 
modifications.  Perhaps  no  one  step  in  the  whole  process  of 
reconstruction  was  more  bitterly  contested  than  this  bill 
which  proposed  to  admit  these  states  under  such  stringent 
conditions.  The  whole  arsenal  of  Democratic  invectives  was 
turned  loose  in  a  raging  fusilade  against  the  Republicans  and 
the  Negroes.  Thaddeus  Stevens  closed  the  debate  in  the 
House  with  a  short,  pungent  speech.  Referring  to  the  re 
marks  of  Mr.  Brooks  (New  York)  reflecting  upon  the  idea  of 
allowing  the  freedmen  to  participate  in  the  government,  Mr. 
Stevens  said:  "I  trust  that  the  gentleman  will  find  out  that 
we  do  mean  that  every  man  in  this  Republic  whether  he  be 
white  or  black  or  mixed ;  whether  he  comes  from  the  East  or 
from  the  West ;  from  the  North  or  from  the  South ;  from  the 
rising  or  from  the  setting  sun,  is  as  free  and  as  much  his  own 
master  as  the  gentleman  from  New  York  or  myself.  And  I 
am  sure  there  is  no  one  who  is  not  as  worthy  to  be  as  either 
of  us.  Let  it  never  again  be  heard  in  these  Halls  that  objec 
tion  is  made  to  institutions  because  they  allow  beings,  allow 
all  beings  with  mortal  souls  in  their  bodies,  to  take  part  in 
the  government  under  which  they  are  to  serve,  under  which 
they  are  to  live,  under  which  they  are  to  rear  their  children 
and  under  which  they  are  to  die.  I,  therefore,  say  I  have  no 
apology  to  make  for  the  admission  that  we  intend  that  these 
men  shall  have  the  right  to  compete  in  intellect,  in  science 
and  in  religion  with  the  gentleman  from  New  York  and  his 
constituents  of  the  'Five  Points'  ;2  with  myself  and  the  honest 
yeomanry  who  are  my  constituents,  and  with  all  the  people 
of  the  nation.  And  let  him  who  is  the  most  worthy,  who 


2.  The   "Fire   Points"   is   the   name    applied   to   a    section   of   New   York    City 
noted  for  its  poor  and  wretched  denizens,  as  well  as   for  degraded  and  tough 
characters  generally. 


[175] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

climbs  the  highest  upon  the  ladder  of  merit,  of  science,  of  in 
tellect,  of  morality — let  him  be  ruler  according  to  the  law,  of 
all  his  sluggard  neighbors,  no  matter  who  they  are,  whether 
they  be  men  of  nobility  or  whether  they  be  of  the  common 
rank."  The  bill  passed  with  the  usual  Republican  majority. 
When  the  measure  reached  the  Senate  it  was  proposed  that 
the  title  of  the  bill  be  so  amended  as  to  include  Alabama. 
Senator  Trumbull  and  some  others  opposed  the  amendment 
on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  improper  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  returns  in  the  constitutional  election  had  shown  that 
a  majority  of  the  electors  had  not  voted.  It  will  be  remember 
ed  that  this  was  the  objection  raised  in  the  House  when  the 
state  was  first  a  candidate  for  admission  and  resulted  in  hav 
ing  the  government  of  the  state  recognized  as  provisional 
only.  Senator  Trumbull's  objection  did  not  prevail.  When 
the  vote  on  the  bill  was  taken,  June  10,  its  title  was  again 
amended  so  as  to  include  Florida.  The  House  later  concurred 
in  all  these  amendments  as  to  adding  names  of  states  and 
thus  the  whole  combination  was  received  back  into  the  Union 
under  the  stringent  conditions  named. 

President  Johnson  returned  the  bill  admitting  Arkansas 
with  his  veto  on  June  20.  In  his  veto  message  he  took  the 
same  ground  that  he  was  accustomed  to  take  on  all  recon 
struction  legislation  by  Congress.  To  begin  with,  he  denied 
the  constitutionality  of  the  Act  of  March  2,  1867,  under 
which  all  the  states  were  required  to  seek  admission.  He 
especially  attacked  the  "fundamental  condition  clause"  and 
the  "test  oath."  But  both  Congress  and  the  President  now 
seemed  to  understand  each  other.  The  message,  therefore, 
caused  neither  surprise  nor  comment.  The  same  quiet  air  pre 
vailed  in  the  Senate  as  in  the  House  when  the  President's 
message  was  laid  before  them,  when  the  Speaker  simply  said: 
"The  question  is,  will  the  House,  on  reconsideration,  agree 
to  the  passage  of  the  bill;"  the  vote  was  111  to  31.  The 
Senate,  on  the  same  day,  passed  the  bill  by  a  vote  of  30  to  7, 
and  the  President's  veto  was  accordingly  overriden.  Three 
days  later  the  Omnibus  Bill  was  returned  by  the  President 
without  his  signature,  and  this,  too,  was  passed  and  became 

[176] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

law  by  virtue  of  a  two-thirds  majority  in  both  Houses.  By 
the  middle  of  July  (1868)  most  of  the  seceded  states  had  for 
mulated  constitutions  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 
the  law.  Virginia,  Mississippi  and  Texas,  however,  still  re 
mained  with  provisional  governments  while  mobocracy  and 
Ku  Kluxism  held  sway.  There  seems  to  have  been  such  little 
inclination  on  the  part  of  these  states  to  be  reconstructed 
that  Congress  deemed  it  necessary  to  enact  legislation  for 
their  especial  benefit.  On  July  24,  Mr.  Bingham  reported  a 
bill  providing  for  the  "speedy  restoration"  of  these  states. 

The  main  features  of  the  bill  intended  to  enlarge  the  powers 
vested  in  the  provisional  legislatures,  giving  the  power  to  ap 
point  and  dismiss  certain  officers ;  to  make  regulations  for 
the  peace  and  protection  of  the  community,  and  to  exercise 
powers  as  nearly  like  those  of  a  regularly  constituted  govern 
ment  as  possible.  The  bill  further  provided  for  the  reassemb 
ling  of  the  conventions  in  Virginia  and  Mississippi  on  the 
fourth  Wednesday  after  its  passage ;  and  that  the  convention 
of  Mississippi  should  at  once  formulate  a  constitution  to  be 
submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection.  It  ap 
peared  that  the  state  had  made  no  effort  in  that  direction  what 
ever.  Some  of  the  states  seemed  determined  to  go  no  faster 
nor  further  in  the  direction  of  readjusting  their  relations  to 
the  nation  than  they  were  compelled  to  go.  Some  formed  con 
stitutions  but  delayed  in  submitting  them  to  be  voted  on,  etc. 
So  on  April  8,  1869,  Congress  passed  an  Act  authorizing  the 
President  to  order  these  constitutions  to  be  voted  on  by  the 
people  whenever  it  might  seem  to  the  best  interest  of  the 
government ;  this  measure  also  made  the  adoption  of  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  a  condition  precedent  before  these 
states  could  come  back  into  the  Union.  The  shocking  bar 
barities  and  depredations  by  the  Ku  Klux  having  continued  un 
abated  when  the  Third  Session  of  the  Fortieth  Congress  as 
sembled,  December  7,  1868,  Mr.  James  A.  Mullins  (Tennes 
see)  brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  House  and 
secured  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  investigate  the 
whole  subject  of  these  outrages.  The  camps,  lodges,  grips, 
signs  and  passwords  discovered,  revealed  the  most  stupend- 

[177] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ous  scheme  to  override  law  and  order  ever  brought  to  light 
in  this  country.  The  report  of  this  committee  fills  many 
volumes. 

In  President  Grant's  first  message,  in  December,  1869,  he 
informed  Congress  that  Virginia  had  held  a  convention  and 
adopted  a  reconstructed  constitution  during  the  previous  July 
and  recommended  that  her  Senators  and  Representatives 
when  otherwise  qualified,  be  given  their  seats  in  the  national 
councils.  A  resolution  was  straightway  offered  for  the  ad 
mission  of  the  state,  but  owing  to  the  numerous  amendments 
proposed,  a  lengthy  and  bitter  debate  ensued.  Senator  Wil 
son  wanted  to  have  an  oath  attached  to  be  subscribed  by 
members  of  the  legislature  binding  them  never  to  endeavor 
to  change  or  amend  the  constitution  of  the  state  so  as  to  de 
prive  any  citizen  of  the  benefits  of  the  Fourteenth  and  Fif 
teenth  Amendments ;  also  pledging  them  to  an  impartial  ad 
ministration  of  the  free  school  system.  Impetus  was  given 
to  the  movement  for  the  Wilson  amendment  by  reports  to 
the  effect  that  a  majority  of  the  Virginia  Legislature  had 
been  elected  through  fraud  and  that  the  state  was  seeking 
admission  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  gaining  a  position 
wherein  it  could  more  effectually  oppose  reconstruction. 
Senator  Wilson's  amendment  did  not  prevail  but  a  proposi 
tion  by  Senator  Drake  (Missouri)  of  a  very  similar  nature 
was  accepted  by  the  Senate  which  also  adopted  that  part  of 
Senator  Wilson's  proposition  for  an  equitable  administration 
of  the  free  school  system.  In  this  shape  the  Virginia  bill  pass 
ed  the  Senate,  January  21,  1870,  and  was  taken  up  and  passed 
by  the  House  a  few  days  later  without  modification.  The 
bill  for  the  admission  of  Mississippi,  essentially  the  same  as 
the  Virginia  bill,  passed  the  House  February  3,  1870,  without 
debate.  When  it  came  up  in  the  Senate,  about  a  week  later, 
on  the  report  of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  it  was  pro 
posed  to  strike  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause  so  that  the 
bill  would  simply  provide  for  the  admission  of  the  state.  It 
appeared  that  when  the  constitution  was  voted  upon  by  the 
people,  that  part  of  the  matter  which  referred  to  the  accept 
ance  of  the  equality  of  all  men,  etc.,  was  rejected  by  a 

[178] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

large  majority.  It  was  urged  by  Senator  Trumbull,  who  was 
an  ultra-conservative,  that  it  would  be  unfair  to  compel  the 
state  to  remain  out  of  the  Union  on  account  of  such  pro 
visions  in  the  bill  as  had  been  rejected  by  the  people  at  the 
polls ;  strenuous  efforts  were  made,  therefore,  to  defeat  the 
measure  as  it  came  from  the  House.  It  was  debated 
ad  nauseam  only  to  be  passed  without  modification  as  it  came 
from  the  House  on  February  17.  About  this  time  the  Senate 
received  a  rather  unusual  shock.  Hiram  R.  Revels,  the  first 
Negro  ever  seated/  in  the  United  States  Senate  was  sworn  in 
on  February  25,  1870.  This  event  fairly  took  the  breath 
away  from  the  Bourbons,  prostrated  the  Copperheads  and 
galled,  not  a  little,  many  others.  It  gave  occasion  for  renewed 
and,  if  possible,  more  acrimonious  aspersions  upon  the  race 
which  Mr.  Revels  represented.  Some  seemed  to  have  lost 
their  self-respect  altogether  so  freely  were  personalities  and 
puny  insults  indulged.  Mr.  Revels  survived  them  all  and 
calmly  took  his  seat  in  the  historic  chamber  that  had  re 
sounded  with  the  eloquence  of  the  Websters  and  Clays  of  the 
nation  and  where  even  then  sat  some  of  the  greatest  minds 
the  republic  has  ever  produced.  Mississippi  has  since  had  one 
other  colored  Senator,  Hon.  B.  K.  Bruce,  who  also  held 
other  high  offices  of  public  trust,  among  them  being  that  of 
Register  of  the  Treasury  and  Recorder  of  Deeds  for  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia.  Under  her  present  constitution,  however, 
Mississippi  is  no  longer  in  danger  of  having  colored  men  to 
represent  her  in  any  capacity,  for  despite  the  circumstances 
and  the  compact  under  which  she  was  readmitted  to  the 
Union,  she  has  practically  disfranchised  all  of  her  colored  citi 
zens  ;  and  all  the  other  southern  states  have  done  the  same. 
And  so  we  make  new  history  but  can  not  unmake  that  which 
is  already  made. 


[179] 


CHAPTER  XX 

Colored  Men  Elected  to  the  Georgia  Legislature :  Their  Expulsion 
From  that  Body — The  Confused  Condition  and  Anomalous  Sit 
uation  in  the  State — Ratification  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
Announced — Georgia  Again  Recognized  as  a  State,  All  Irreg 
ularities  Being  Waived. 

The  State  of  Georgia  was  one  of  those  admitted  under  the 
Omnibus  Bill  in  July,  1868,  after  a  bitter  contest.  Although 
Tennessee  furnished  a  precedent  by  promptly  reorganizing 
her  government  under  the  provisions  of  the  General  Enab 
ling  Act  of  March  2,  1867,  all  hope  of  keeping  the  disaffected 
states  out  of  the  Union  until  Congress  should  be  forced  to 
recognize  the  doctrine  that  the  functions  of  their  old  consti 
tutions  had  not  been  destroyed  but  simply  suspended,  making 
it  necessary  for  them  only  to  resume,  was  not  abandoned  un 
til  after  the  passage  of  the  Omnibus  Bill,  at  which  time  a 
large  batch  of  states  was  admitted  at  once.  This  was  a  great 
victory  for  the  radical  reconstructionists ;  and  this  in  connec 
tion  with  the  announcement  of  the  adoption  of  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment,  July  21,  1868,  by  the  requisite  number 
of  states  tended  to  make  all  feel  that  the  crisis  in  reconstruc 
tion  had  been  passed. 

Georgia,  as  soon  as  she  was  admitted,  began  at  once 
to  take  steps  to  resume  her  relations  to  the  Union  by  electing 
a  legislature  preparatory  to  the  election  of  her  United  States 
Senators,  etc.  A  number  of  colored  men  were  elected  to  the 
State  Assembly  along  with  the  rest,  but  that  body  expelled 
them  as  soon  as  it  met,  on  the  ground  that  the  right  to  vote 
did  not  include  the  right  to  hold  office.  This  short  task  of  ex 
pelling  these  twenty-seven  colored  members  having  been  ac 
complished,  the  Assembly  next  quietly  proceeded  to  elect 
United  States  Senators,  who  immediately  repaired  to  Wash 
ington.  Congress  refused  to  recognize  either  the  Senators  or 
Representatives  from  Georgia  in  view  of  the  well-known 
situation  of  affairs  in  the  state.  General  Butler  offered  a 

[180] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

resolution  proposing  to  put  the  state  through  another  course 
of  reconstruction ;  this  gave  rise  to  a  discussion,  during  which 
all  the  circumstances  attending  the  expulsion  of  the  twenty- 
seven  members  of  the  Georgia  Legislature  were  aired.  There 
appears  to  have  been  no  particular  ceremony  about  the  mat 
ter  whatever;  they  were  simply  not  permitted  to  enter  the 
Hall,  while  the  white  members  on  the  inside  voted  to  keep 
them  outside  by  deciding  that  they  were  not  members  en 
titled  to  seats.  The  whole  thing  must  have  been  looked  on  as 
a  joke,  as  nothing  ever  came  out  of  it  beyond  the  temporary 
embarrassment  Congress  inflicted  upon  the  National  Repre 
sentatives  from  Georgia  who  were  for  a  short  time  denied 
their  seats  at  Washington.  This  Georgia  Legislature  not  only 
expelled  its  twenty-seven  colored  members  but  seated  twen 
ty-seven  white  men  who  were  disqualified  under  Section  3,  of 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  Still  the  state  had  its  champions 
in  Washington.  Senator  Trumbull  labored  to  get  his  col 
leagues  to  agree  to  admit  the  members  from  Georgia  to  their 
seats  because  the  state  had  been  admitted  before  these  com 
plications  arose.  The  House  finally  passed  a  bill  providing 
for  the  recognition  of  the  Representatives,  etc.,  from  Georgia 
whenever,  among  other  things,  the  legislature  should  adopt 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment;  but  Mr.  Bingham  got  an  amend 
ment  attached  to  the  effect  that  nothing  in  the  Act  should  be 
construed  to  vacate  any  office,  elective  or  appointive,  nor 
should  anything  contained  therein  be  construed  to  operate 
for  the  retention  of  any  persons  in  office  beyond  the  time 
specified  by  the  state  constitution.  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
many  were  said  to  be  holding  office  in  the  state  through 
fraud,  this  amendment  was  not  satisfactory ;  besides  it  served 
to  muddle  and  complicate  matters  worse  than  they  were  at 
first,  for  this  Legislature  of  Georgia  promptly  adopted  all 
the  constitutional  amendments,  even  including  the  Fifteenth, 
all  of  which  they  appeared  to  have  violated  in  the  same  in 
stant.  The  situation  was  therefore  considered  to  be  bad 
enough  without  dragging  in  the  question  as  to  whether  state 
officials  and  petty  officers  elected  in  1868  for  a  term  of  two 
years  should  continue  for  two  years  after  all  the  affairs  of 

[181] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

the  state  should  become  settled  or  whether  their  term  of  of 
fice  should  date  from  the  time  they  went  in  office  in  1868.  All 
these  officials  had  been  nominally  serving  and  at  least  draw 
ing  their  salaries  since  1868;  and  these  included  those  who 
had  voted  to  expel  the  colored  men  as  well  as  the  rest.  All 
had  served  their  two  years.  Still  they  claimed  the  right  to 
serve  on  until  these  affairs  were  settled  and  then  to  serve  for 
two  years  thereafter.  Mr.  Bullock,  who  was  the  Governor  of 
the  state,  most  strenuously  upheld  the  contention  that  the 
legislature  should  serve  another  term  of  two  years  without 
another  election.  The  House  loaded  the  Bingham  proposition 
with  so  many  amendments  and  conditions  that  it  was  scarcely 
recognizable.  When  the  matter  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate, 
Mr.  Pomeroy  had  everything  stricken  out  of  the  bill  except 
that  part  providing  for  the  government  of  the  state  to  be 
provisional,  and  had  inserted  provisions  authorizing  the 
President  to  send  Federal  troops  into  any  city,  town,  or  dis 
trict  when  satisfied  that  there  was  within  its  borders  domes 
tic  violence  or  obstructions  to  the  due  process  of  law.  This 
Senate  measure  was  reported  back  from  the  House  Recon 
struction  Committee,  with  some  few  alterations,  on  June  23 
(1870)  but  the  members  were  still  so  puzzled  over  the  matter 
that  there  was  little  agreement  to  be  found  either  in  the  com 
mittee  or  on  the  floor  of  the  House.  The  matter  hung  on  for 
an  unusually  long  time.  Finally,  the  two  Houses  having 
failed  to  agree,  the  matter  was  referred  to  a  conference 
which  at  length  matured  a  bill  under  which  the  Representa 
tives  of  the  state  were  recognized  and  there  the  matter  ended,, 
all  the  irregularities  having  been  ignored  or  condoned,  as 
everybody  had  been  either  disgusted  or  worn  out  with  the 
controversy. 

Public  feeling  in  the  South  against  the  colored  people  con 
tinued  to  be  very  bitter.  A  bill  was  reported  by  Mr.  Bingham 
on  March  10,  1870,  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Fourteenth  and 
Fifteenth  Amendments  and  providing  penalties  for  the  viola 
tion  of  the  same.  This  was  readily  passed  by  the  House  by  a 
vote  of  131  to  44.  In  the  meantime  the  Senate  was  consider 
ing  what  was  considered  to  be  a  much  stronger  measure^ 

[182] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

which  provided  for  the  arrest  and  prosecution  of  offenders 
against  the  spirit  of  the  last  two  amendments  mentioned,  by 
United  States  district  attorneys,  marshals,  etc.,  who  were  di 
rected  to  bring  such  offenders  before  the  United  States  Cir 
cuit  Courts  for  trial.  The  President  was  also  given  the  power, 
whenever  he  deemed  it  necessary,  to  order  special  sittings 
of  said  courts  and  also  to  direct  the  use  of  any  part  of  the 
army  or  navy  to  assist  in  seeing  that  the  provisions  of  the  law 
were  carried  out.  The  bill  also  re-enacted  the  main  features 
of  the  Civil  Rights  and  Homestead  Acts  of  1866.  When  the 
House  Bill  reached  the  Senate,  that  body  struck  out  all  after 
the  enacting  clause  and  inserted  its  own  measure,  which  it 
passed  by  a  vote  of  43  to  8  on  May  20  (1870).  The  House  ac 
cepted  this  measure  and  passed  it  May  27,  and  the  President 
approved  it  May  31. l  Just  before  the  final  passage  of  this 
measure,  President  Grant  transmitted  to  Congress  the  follow 
ing  message :  "It  is  unusual  to  notify  the  two  Houses  of  Con 
gress,  by  message,  of  the  promulgation  by  proclamation  of 
the  Secretary  of  State,  of  the  ratification  of  a  constitutional 
amendment.  In  view,  however,  of  the  vast  importance  of  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  I  deem  a  departure 
from  the  usual  custom  justifiable.  A  measure  which  makes  at 
once  four  millions  of  people  voters  who  were  heretofore  de 
clared  by  the  highest  tribunal  in  the  land  not  citizens  of  the 
United  States  nor  eligible  to  become  so  (with  the  assertion 
that  'at  the  time  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the  opin 
ion  was  fixed  and  universal  in  the  civilized  portion  of  the  white 
race,  and  regarded  as  an  axiom  in  morals  as  well  as  politics, 
that  the  black  man  had  no  rights  which  the  white  man  was 
bound  to  respect')  is,  indeed,  a  measure  of  grander  importance 
than  any  other  one  act  of  the  kind  from  the  foundation  of  our 
government  to  the  present  day.  Institutions  like  ours,  in  which 
all  powers  are  derived  directly  from  the  people,  must  mainly 
depend  upon  their  intelligence,  patriotism  and  industry.  I  call 
the  attention,  therefore,  of  the  newly  enfranchised  race  to 
the  importance  of  their  striving  in  every  honorable  manner 


1.  Declared  unconstitutional.    See  Appendix. 

[183] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

to  make  themselves  worthy  of  their  new  privileges.  To  the 
other  race,  more  favored  heretofore  by  our  laws,  I  would  say, 
withhold  no  legal  privilege  of  advancement  to  the  new  citi 
zens.  I  would  therefore  call  upon  Congress  to  take  all  means 
within  their  constitutional  powers  to  promote  and  encourage 
popular  education  throughout  the  country ;  and  upon  the 
people,  everywhere,  to  see  to  it  that  all  who  possess  and  exer 
cise  political  rights,  shall  have  the  opportunity  to  acquire  the 
knowledge  which  shall  make  their  share  in  the  government  a 
;blessing  and  not  a  danger.  By  such  means  only  can  the  bene- 
ifits  contemplated  by  this  amendment  be  secured." 

It  was  during  the  discussion  of  the  Georgia  bill  that  Hiram 
R.  Revels,  the  first  Negro  Senator,  delivered  his  maiden 
speech  in  the  Senate  (March  16,  1870).  It  was  not  a  lengthy 
'effort  but  it  was  smooth  and  polished.  In  complimenting  Mr. 
Revels  on  his  speech,  Senator  Morton,  addressing  the  Senate, 
said  that  Mr.  Revels  had  vindicated  the  cause  of  liberty  and 
shown  by  his  ability  and  intelligence,  that  in  exchanging  him 
for  Jefferson  Davis,  the  Senate  had  "lost  nothing  in  intelli 
gence  while  it  had  gained  much  in  patriotism  and  loyalty."2 


2.  Revels  was  elected  to  fill  the  unexpired  terra  of  Jefferson  Davis. 


[184] 


CHAPTER  XXI 

The  Grant-Sumner  Quarrel  Over  the  Annexation  of  San  Domingo — 
Senator  Thurman's  Speech  in  Sumner's  Defense — Sumner  Vic 
torious,  but  His  Colleagues  Attempt  to  Humiliate  Him. 

One  of  the  most  bitter  quarrels  that  ever  occurred  between 
a  President  of  the  United  States  and  a  Senator  of  the  same 
political  party  was  the  noted  disagreement  between  President 
Grant  and  Senator  Sumner  about  the  island  of  San  Domingo. 
One  Baez,  who  had  temporarily  usurped  the  control  of  affairs 
in  San  Domingo,  offered  the  island  for  annexation  to  the 
United  States.  The  place  is  fertile,  well  suited  to  the  pur 
poses  of  commerce  and  most  admirably  situated  for  a  harbor 
and  coaling  station  for  the  United  States.  Grant  coveted  the 
possession  and  believed  that  practically  all  the  leaders  of  his 
party  would  indorse  his  scheme  of  trying  to  get  hold  of  it,  and 
devoted  by  far  the  major  portion  of  his  annual  message  of 
December,  1870,  to  the  enforcement  of  the  idea  upon  Con 
gress.  Mr.  Sumner  opposed  the  proposition  with  his  whole 
soul.  He  declared  that  it  menaced  the  independence  of  Hayti ; 
that  the  Dominican  Government  had  been  overthrown  under 
the  protection  of  the  United  States  gunboats,  and  asserted  on 
the  authority  of  a  naval  officer  who  had  been  an  eye-witness, 
that  the  admiral  of  our  fleet  had  given  Hayti  to  understand 
that  no  interference  on  the  part  of  her  people  would  be  toler 
ated  or  allowed.  He  declared  that  we  were  aiming  to  take 
despicable  advantage  of  the  people  of  San  Domingo,  who,  by 
a  large  majority,  were  opposed  to  annexation  and  character 
ized  the  whole  affair  as  an  "act  of  violence"  on  our  part  to 
which  the  Dominicans  would  never  submit  and  declared  that 
the  consummation  of  the  scheme  would  "commit  this  country 
to  a  dance  of  blood."  "Governments  founded  on  violence," 
said  he,  "can  be  maintained  only  by  violence."  Mr.  Sumner's 
speech  was  against  the  proposition  and  not  against  the  Presi 
dent;  but  President  Grant  was  popular  and  had  just  entered 

[185] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

upon  his  power  as  President  and  it  was  practically  well  known 
at  the  time  that  he  would  serve  for  eight  years ;  opposition 
to  him  in  any  matter,  in  the  eyes  of  politicians  was  regarded, 
if  not  as  treason,  at  least  as  lese  majesty.  Never  was  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  more  bitterly  assailed  by  his  colleagues  for 
his  support  of  or  opposition  to  any  question  on  the  floor  of 
Congress  than  was  Senator  Sumner  on  this  occasion.  Nor  did 
the  assault  come  from  the  Democrats,  the  acknowledged 
enemy  whom  he  was  wont  to  meet.  Former  comrades  with 
whom  he  had  so  often  counseled  together  hurled  against  him 
their  darts  of  reproach  and  denounced  him  in  the  bitterest 
language  of  which  they  were  capable.  All  seemed  to  try  to  be 
first  in  defense  of  the  President,  who  was  the  central  figure, 
and  generally  lost  sight  of  the  issue  entirely  in  their  eager 
ness  to  make  a  personal  attack  upon  Sumner  for  daring  to 
show  up  Grant  and  those  in  league  with  him  in  their  endeavor 
to  seize  San  Domingo.  Indeed,  it  appeared  that  Sumner  had 
made  out  such  a  good  case  that  they  despaired  of  answering 
his  argument,  hence  turned  to  personalities,  as  many  debat 
ers  often  do  under  such  circumstances.  Sumner's  speech  was 
sweeping  and  conclusive.  Several  of  his  Republican  colleagues 
had  spent  their  time  berating  him,  when  Thurman,  a  Demo 
cratic  Senator  from  Ohio,  arose  to  speak  in  Sumner's  defense. 
He  was  evidently  deeply  touched  by  the  acrimonious  attack 
upon  his  old  antagonist  who,  though  recognized  as  perhaps 
the  most  learned  and  powerful  debater  in  Congress,  never 
descended  to  personalities  of  any  kind.  The  tribute  now  to 
be  paid  to  him  was  all  the  more  touching  and  effective  be 
cause  of  the  source  from  which  it  was  to  come.  Mr.  Thurman 
remarked  that  a  stranger  witnessing  the  scene  would  certain 
ly  have  gained  the  impression  that  the  Senate  was  impeaching 
Mr.  Sumner  for  treason.  Said  he  "The  Senator  from  Michigan 
(Mr.  Chandler)  was  pleased  to  tell  the  Senator  from  Massa 
chusetts  that  when  he  came  'to  train  his  little  band  of  Demo 
crats'  here  it  would  not  be  a  very  difficult  task;  that  there 
were  not  so  many  but  that  he  might  dress  them  in  line  with 
out  any  great  military  genius. 

"When  the  Senator  made  that  remark  my  memory  took  me 

[186] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

back  eighteen  years  ago  to  the  memorable  year  of  1852. 
That  was  a  presidential  year.  There  were  two  candidates,  the 
Whig,  General  Scott,  and  the  Democratic,  General  Franklin 
Pierce.  They  stood  upon  two  platforms  that  were  essentially 
the  same  in  one  particular — pro-slavery ;  platforms  that  de 
manded  in  almost  the  same  language  and  exactly  the  same 
meaning,  a  cessation  of  the  agitation  of  the  question  of 
slavery  and  against  the  abolition  thereof;  which  denounced 
it  as  unpatriotic  in  any  part  of  the  Republic  for  any  one  to 
seek  to  disturb  the  status  of  slavery  as  it  then  existed  in  the 
United  States.  Upon  those  platforms,  the  two  great  parties 
of  the  country  went  to  battle  in  1852 ;  but  there  was  one  man 
in  the  Senate  that  day,  and  but  one,  who  repudiated  both 
platforms  and  would  stand  on  neither,  who  repudiated  both 
candidates  and  would  vote  for  neither ;  and  that  man  was 
Charles  Sumner.1  I  see  him  standing  in  the  Senate  Chamber 
there  without  a  single  follower.  He  had  no  ten  men  then,  the 
number  of  Democrats  here,  'to  dress  in  line ;'  nobody  but 
himself.  I  have  lived  to  see  the  day  when  sixty  Republican 
Senators,  the  Senator  from  Michigan  among  them,  followed 
in  his  footsteps  with  the  most  implicit  obedience.  I  have  seen 
that  which  I  never  expected  to  see ;  I  have  seen  the  man  who 
repudiated  your  candidate  in  1852,  who  spat  upon  your  plat 
form,  at  the  head  of  your  councils  for  nearly  ten  years  in  the 
United  States  Senate.  Where,  then,  were  you  who  now  talk 
about  nothing  but  freedom?  Where,  then,  were  you  who 
boast  about  the  enfranchisement  of  the  African  race  ?  Where, 
then,  were  you  who  are  now  so  ready  to  denounce  a  man  who 
stands  up  for  the  institutions  of  his  country?  Where  were 
you,  Republican  Senators,  in  1852,  when  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  stood,  if  not  solitary,  at  least  alone?  Where 
were  you?  One-half  of  you,  or  nearly  so,  voting  for  Franklin 
Pierce,  and  the  rest  of  you,  for  Winfield  Scott." 

Perhaps  it  would  be  unjust  to  assert  that  all  of  those  who 
so  rabidly  advocated  the  acquisition  of  San  Domingo  were 
actuated  by  purely  selfish  motives  and  were  willing  to  get 
possession  of  the  place  for  use  by  us  as  a  coaling  station  and 

1.  Sumner    supported    Hale    and   Julian,    anti- slavery    candidates,    in    1852. 

[187] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

harbor  without  regard  to  moral  or  other  considerations. 
President  Grant  and  some  who  agreed  with  him,  argued  that 
the  taking  of  the  island  under  our  protection  would  compen 
sate  its  people  for  the  use  of  their  harbor,  etc.  On  the  other 
hand,  Sumner  held  that  such  a  step  would  simply  induce 
greedy  speculators  to  rush  in  and  gradually  usurp  the  govern 
ment  of  the  islanders,  overturn  their  institutions  and  run 
things  to  suit  themselves  and  claim  the  protection  of  the 
United  States  Government  while  doing  so;  just  as  was  the 
case  with  the  Germans  in  Samoa ;  just  as  a  handful  of  Ameri 
cans  since  did  in  Hawaii ;  just  as,  with  more  propriety  per 
haps,  all  of  the  European  powers  have  done  or  are  doing  in 
Africa.  At  all  events,  it  would  seem  that  Sumner  never 
showed  greater  consistency  in  all  his  career  than  he  did  in  op 
posing  this  movement  for  the  seizure  of  San  Domingo.  In 
obedience  to  the  behest  of  the  slave  power,  the  United  States 
at  one  time  made  strenuous  efforts  to  secure  Cuba ;  we  even 
went  so  far  as  to  indorse  what  was  known  as  the  Ostend 
Manifesto.  But  all  these  attempts  fell  flat,  as  did  Walker's 
invasion  of  Central  America.  Had  the  United  States  succeeded 
in  any  of  these  designs  there  is  little  doubt  but  that  grave 
complications  would  have  arisen  that  might  have  had  a  serious 
bearing  on  the  results  of  the  Civil  War.  It  was  due  primarily 
to  the  influence  of  Mr.  Sumner  that  the  movement  for  the  an 
nexation  of  San  Domingo  was  defeated.  And  to  punish  him 
for  his  course  in  this  connection,  he  was  removed  from  the 
chairmanship  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
a  post  which  he  had  held  from  the  time  the  Republican  party 
first  assumed  the  reins  of  government.  And  before  his  death 
in  1874,  Sumner  found  himself  standing  almost  alone  again  in 
the  ranks  of  the  Republican  party,  which  he  had  helped  to 
found,  just  as  he  had  stood  in  1852  before  its  birth. 


[188] 


CHAPTER  XXII 

Outrages  in  the  South  and  Legislation  for  Their  Suppression — 
Sumner's  Civil  Rights  Bill — Report  of  the  Investigation  of  Ku 
Kluxism — The  Force  Bill — The  Suppression  of  the  Ku  Klux 
by  Troops. 

The  war  not  only  left  scores,  if  not  the  majority,  of  there 
tofore  rich  men  in  the  South  comparatively  poor,  but  turned 
loose  in  that  section  a  horde  of  originally  poor  whites  whose 
occupation  as  slave-drivers  had  been  taken  away.  Landless  in 
a  land  of  planter-barons  they  had  been  but  parasites  and  in 
many  cases,  worse  off  than  the  slaves.  They  hated  the  Ne 
groes  desperately  because  slavery  rendered  all  kinds  of  labor 
degrading  to  a  white  man,  and  they  were  constantly  kept  on 
the  verge  of  starvation  through  their  false  pride.  As  soon  as 
the  colored  people  were  left  without  the  protection  of  their 
former  masters  they  were  set  upon  and  outraged  in  every 
way.  The  situation  became  such  in  1871  that  Congress  was 
compelled  to  take  further  steps  in  the  direction  of  suppressing 
disorders.  The  Ku  Klux  Klan  was  claiming  its  hundreds  of 
black  victims  almost  daily ;  even  white  men  who  dared  to 
show  any  sympathy  for  the  freedmen  were  mobbed.  There 
were  many  northern  white  people  in  the  South  at  this  time; 
some  had  gone  there  previously  to  administer  to  the  Union 
soldiers  during  the  war,  and  remained;  others,  many  of  them 
brave  women,  had  left  their  northern  homes  especially  on  er 
rands  of  mercy  to  the  distressed  freedmen.  These  were  teach 
ing  and  establishing  schools.  The  report  of  the  Congressional 
committee  appointed  to  investigate  and  report  on  this  situa 
tion  showed  that  nearly  forty  thousand  men  in  the  State  of 
North  Carolina  alone  belonged  to  this  gigantic  league  of 
marauding  assassins.  The  nights  were  made  awful  by  the 
weird  lights  and  terrifying  whoops  of  the  Ku  Klux.  In  the 
stillness  of  the  midnight  hours  these  ominous  warnings  could 
be  heard  in  connection  with  the  sounds  of  horses'  hoofs 
against  the  frozen  ground  and  then  the  knock  at  the  cabin 

[189] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

door.  There  would  be  no  light  about  the  hovel  and  perhaps 
no  strong  armed  man  within,  only  an  old  grand  sire  who  had 
spent  his  many  winters  under  the  yoke ;  or  a  mother  who 
would  but  draw  her  little  children  nearer  to  her  as  a  silent 
response  to  their  childish  queries  as  axes  battered  in  the  cabin 
door.  Neither  the  gray  hairs  of  the  old  man  nor  the  prayers 
and  tears  of  the  women,  nor  the  piteous  wails  of  the  little 
children  could  avail  to  restrain  the  remorseless  hands  of  the 
Ku  Klux  bent  upon  their  work  of  outrage  and  terror.  Exorcism 
by  legislation  had  been  tried  in  vain.  But  in  April,  1871,  an 
other  Act  was  passed  by  Congress  for  the  enforcement  of  the 
Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments,  especially  designed 
to  meet  the  case  of  the  Ku  Klux.  The  Act  made  the  towns,  mu 
nicipalities  and  counties  in  which  outrages  occurred  respon 
sible  in  damages  to  those  aggrieved.  Even  this  piece  of  legis 
lation  proved  to  be  utterly  worthless  to  effect  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  designed.  The  difficulties  experienced  in  get 
ting  Congress  to  pass  even  so  reasonable  an  Act  tend  to 
show  how  rapidly  the  radicals  lost  ground  after  the  last  of 
the  seceded  states  returned  to  the  Union.  In  the  meantime 
the  commission  appointed  to  look  into  the  Ku  Klux  and  other 
outrages  in  the  South  made  their  report  to  Congress.  The 
report  disclosed  a  most  cowardly  plot  to  deprive  the  freedmen 
of  all  benefits  of  their  freedom  in  spite  of  constitutional 
amendments  and  Federal  statutes.  When  the  matter  was 
taken  up  it  caused  a  most  animated  debate  in  both  Houses. 
For,  while  there  were  some  who  scored  the  South  for  at 
tempting  such  a  mean  method  of  taking  revenge  for  its  de 
feat  on  the  field  of  battle,  there  were  others  who,  in  days  gone 
by,  had  defended  slavery,  defended  slave-holders  in  the  breed 
ing  of  slaves  like  cattle  by  encouraging  the  destruction  of 
feminine  chastity  and  the  unrestrained  sensuality  of  the  men; 
who  had  condoned  the  morals  of  the  master  who  would  beget 
children  by  his  slave  women  and  then  send  his  own  offspring 
to  the  auction  block,  true  to  their  traditions  and  history  in 
public  life,  these  men  defended  the  Ku  Klux  Klan.  They  bra 
zenly  asserted  that  the  courts  without  the  aid  or  intervention 
of  the  Federal  authorities  in  the  South,  afforded  ample  pro- 

[190] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

tection  against  all  the  violence  complained  of,  though  it  was 
well-known,  the  report  under  consideration  being  sufficient 
to  remove  any  doubt  of  the  fact  if  any  previously  existed, 
that  those  aggrieved  by  these  outrages  had  no  voice  in  court ; 
and  that  if  any  one  should  be  arrested  he  would  most  likely 
be  tried  by  jurymen  who  themselves  were  participants  in  the 
crimes  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  It  was  truly  said  that  the 
courts  of  that  section  at  that  time  were  a  "mockery,  where 
a  perjured  judge,  a  perjured  jury  and  perjured  witnesses 
swore  the  rights  of  the  poor  away."  It  was  a  day  of  sore 
trial  for  the  landless,  homeless,  moneyless,  friendless  colored 
people,  while  the  voice  of  fa  Republican  Congress  rang  out 
over  the  distant  hills  in  statutes  which  sounded  like  approach 
ing  allies  that  never  came  nearer.  Finally  after  a  hard 
struggle,  a  bill  was  matured  and  passed  on  the  19th  of  April, 
1871,  for  the  suppression  of  the  Ku  Klux.  This  was  the  most 
effective  piece  of  legislation  ever  passed  by  the  reconstruc- 
tionists ;  in  fact,  if  we  judge  by  the  immediate  results,  it  was 
second  only  to  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  which  abolished 
slavery.  The  efficiency  of  this  measure  was  wholly  due  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  backed  up  by  Federal  arms ;  it  was  known 
and  will  ever  be  known  as  "The  Force  Bill,"1  and  its  passage 
was  largely  due  to  the  energy  of  Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler. 
The  bitterness  with  which  General  Butler  was  attacked  on  ac 
count  of  his  championing  the  measure  by  the  southerners  who 
were  now  all  back  in  Congress,  was  increased  by  their  hatred 
of  him  engendered  during  the  war.  General  Butler  had  been 
one  of  the  first  officers  to  try  out  and  approve  of  colored  men 
as  soldiers.  Every  effort  had  been  made  inside  the  army  and 
outside  to  disqualify  colored  men  as  soldiers.  It  was  believed 
that  the  white  officers  in  charge  of  colored  troops  often  de 
liberately  led  them  into  traps  to  be  slaughtered  and  in  other 
ways  dealt  treacherously  by  them ;  being  firmly  convinced 
that  such  was  the  case,  General  Butler  took  the  colored  troops 
in  his  army  under  his  personal  command  in  an  attack  upon 
a  fort  near  Petersburg,  which  the  Confederates  regarded  as 
impregnable.  After  witnessing  that  magnificent  charge  in 

1.  The   Federal   Elections   Bill,  agitated  later  and  defeated   by   Mr.   Blaine,  the 
Speaker  of  the  House,  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  "Force  Bill." 

[191] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

which  nearly  six  hundred  of  his  colored  troops  fell  without  a 
waver  in  their  line,  General  Butler  swore  an  oath  that  he 
would  ever  afterwards  champion  the  rights  of  the  colored 
people  of  this  country  as  long  as  he  lived.  He  faithfully  kept 
his  oath.2  Another  thing,  besides  his  vigorous  conduct  of  af 
fairs  while  in  charge  at  New  Orleans,  that  made  General  But 
ler  especially  hated  by  southerners,  was  his  characteristic  re 
buff  of  Colonel  Mallory,  at  Fortress  Monroe,  when  he  came 
to  General  Butler's  camp  in  quest  of  certain  of  his  slaves  wha 
had  taken  refuge  in  the  Union  camp.  General  Butler  remind 
ed  Colonel  Mallory  that  if  the  alleged  slaves  were  not  his 
property  he  had  no  right  to  them  and  that  if  they  were  claim 
ed  as  his  property,  he,  General  Butler,  would  hold  them  as. 
"contraband"  of  war.  This  became  one  of  the  most  talked  of 
incidents  that  happened  during  the  war.  And  so  the  debate 
on  the  Force  Bill  was  memorable  not  only  because  of  the  bit 
ter  attacks  of  the  southerners  upon  General  Butler,  but  be 
cause  the  opposition  was  supported  by  many  others.  A  short 
history  of  the  bill  and  the  struggle  to  pass  it  follows:  On 
March  10,  1871,  Mr.  Samuel  Shellabarger,  of  Ohio,  introduced 
a  bill  for  the  employment  of  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the 
United  States  for  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  in  the  states 
lately  in  rebellion  and  for  the  protection  of  all  persons  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  On  March  17,  Mr. 
Peters  moved  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  look  into 
the  affairs  of  that  section,  of  which  General  Butler  was  made 
chairman,  Mr.  Peters  having  declined  to  serve  on  the  commit 
tee  which  consisted  of  thirteen  members.  On  this  same  day 
the  Senate  passed  a  concurrent  resolution  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  a  joint  committee  to  consist  of  seven  Senators  and 
nine  Representatives  for  the  investigation  of  these  affairs. 
The  House  amended  this  so  as  to  have  seven  Senators  and 
fourteen  Representatives  and  to  this  the  Senate  agreed. 
While  this  arrangement  did  away  with  the  Butler  Committee, 
Butler  was  still  of  the  number  appointed  by  the  Speaker  on 
the  joint  committee.  In  the  meantime,  President  Grant  trans 
mitted  a  special  message  to  Congress  asking  for  the  enact- 

2.  Butler's  Book,  Chap.  XVI. 

[192] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ment  of  some  law  for  the  protection  of  life,  liberty  and  prop 
erty  in  the  South,  and  stating  that  the  carrying  of  the  mails 
and  the  collection  of  the  revenue  were  endangered,  and  that 
evidence  of  these  facts  were  before  Congress.  This  message 
was  referred  to  a  special  committee  of  nine,  of  which  Mr.  Shel- 
labarger  was  chairman  and  General  Butler  was  named  second. 
Mr.  Shellabarger  reported  a  bill  for  the  enforcement  of  the 
Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments  in  substance,  as  fol 
lows:  Section  1.  Provided  for  the  abolition  of  all  laws,  ordin 
ances,  regulations,  etc.,  of  any  state  which  discriminated  be 
tween  citizens  on  account  of  race,  color,  etc.  Section  2.  Pro 
vided  penalties  for  any  breach  of  the  laws  guaranteeing  civil 
or  political  rights.  Section  '4.  Provided  for  the  suspension  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  the  placing  of  rebellious  districts 
under  martial  law.  The  bill  in  this  shape  was  passed  by  both 
Houses.  In  pursuance  of  this  statute,  the  President,  on  Oc 
tober  12,  1871,  issued  a  proclamation  calling  upon  the  Ku  Klux 
and  other  like  unlawful  organizations  to  disband  and  to  de 
liver  to  the  United  States  marshals  their  arms,  ammunition, 
disguises,  etc.,  within  five  days.  The  warning  went  unheeded 
and  on  the  17th  day  of  that  month  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was 
suspended  in  all  sections  in  which  Ku  Klux  organizations  were 
known  to  exist.  Several  hundred  persons  were  arrested  and 
as  many  as  were  proven  guilty  in  a  minor  degree  were  re 
leased,  but  168  were  held  for  trial.  When  it  was  discovered 
that  those  sent  to  enforce  the  law  did  not  intend  to  perjure 
themselves  and  connive  at  the  crimes  they  were  sent  to  sup 
press,  the  Ku  Klux  fled  and  even  many  absconded  who  were 
not  active  in  the  organization  for  fear  of  being  suspected.  No 
body  was  ever  visited  with  condign  punishment  for  participat 
ing  in  these  outrages ;  indeed,  it  was  only  necessary  to  show 
a  determination  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  to  enforce  law 
and  order  in  order  to  have  a  quietus  put  on  the  operations  of 
the  splendidly  organized  Ku  Klux.  The  difficulty  in  making 
reconstruction  effective  had  been  with  the  Federal  commis 
sioners  and  agents  who  were  sent  South  to  execute  the  de 
crees  of  Congress.  These  gentlemen  would  leave  Washington 
with  a  great  deal  of  gusto  but  on  reaching  their  destination 

[193] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

\vould  apparently  league  themselves  with  the  rankest  oppo 
nents  of  the  Washington  Government  and  aE  that  they  would 
do  between  entertainments  at  their  hotels  or  quarters  would 
be  the  writing  of  letters  back  to  some  official  bewailing  the 
state  of  affairs  in  the  South  in  order  to  hold  on  to  their  job. 
Even  the  Federal  soldiers  quartered  in  the  South  were  in 
many  cases  meaner  and  more  to  be  feared  than  the  native- 
born  rabble.  It  was  no  uncommon  thing  for  some  of  these 
Federal  soldiers  to  take  property  from  the  poor  freedmen  and 
give  them  a  kick  for  thanks.  These  braves  would  often  strip 
freedmen  of  their  clothing  on  meeting  them,  leaving  their 
own,  reeking  with  vermin,  in  exchange;  and  if  the  unfortun 
ate  freedman  complained,  he  was  lucky  to  get  away  with  his 
life.  But  the  officers  and  men  sent  to  suppress  the  Ku  Klux, 
besides  the  mere  duty,  had  the  incentive  of  something  that  sa 
vored  of  military  glory ;  they  would  not  have  it  said  that  they 
were  incapable  of  accomplishing  the  task  that  was  set  before 
them.  In  his  annual  message  of  December,  1871,  referring  to 
the  reign  of  terror  and  Ku  Kluxism  in  the  South,  President 
Grant  said:  "Information  was  received  of  combinations  of 
this  character  in  certain  counties  of  South  Carolina.  Careful! 
investigation  was  made  and  it  was  found  that  in  nine  counties 
such  combinations  were  active  and  powerful,  embracing  a 
sufficient  number  of  the  citizens  to  control  the  local  author 
ity."  But  this  condition  was  known  to  have  been  general 
.-throughout  the  South  at  that  time.  While  the  South  has 
since  seen  much  of  mob  violence  in  one  form  or  another,  such 
-outrages  as  were  perpetrated  by  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  until 
broken  up  by  the  Force  Bill,  have  never  been  repeated. 

On  March  9,  1871,  Mr.  Sumner  introduced  a  measure  en 
titled  "A  bill  supplementary  to  an  Act  to  protect  all  citizens 
in  their  civil  rights,  and  furnish  means  for  their  vindication, 
passed  April  9,  1866."  The  first  section  set  forth  the  rights 
of  every  citizen  without  regard  to  color,  etc.,  to  an  "equal  and 
impartial  enjoyment  of  any  accommodation,  advantage,  fa 
cility,  or  privilege  furnished  by  common  carriers  whether  on 
land  or  water ;  by  inn-keepers ;  by  licensed  owners,  managers 
.  or  lessees  of  theatres  or  other  places  of  public  amusement;  by 

[194] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

trustees,  teachers  and  other  officers  of  common  schools  and 
other  institutions  of  learning,  etc."3  In  a  short  explanatory 
speech  Mr.  Sumner  said:  "I  believe  that  our  colored  fellow- 
citizens  are  exposed  to  outrages  which  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  can  arrest ;  and  so  long  as  Congress  fails  to  ar 
rest  them,  the  Republican  party  with  which  I  am  associated 
and  with  whose  welfare  I  am  identified,  must  suffer.  How 
can  the  Republican  party  turn  to  their  colored  fellow-citizens 
for  their  votes  when  they  leave  them  to  be  insulted  as  they 
now  are  whenever  they  travel  upon  a  railroad  car  or  enter  a 
hotel  ?  Senators  may  vote  this  measure  down ;  they  may  take 
the  responsibility ;  but  I  fwill  take  mine,  God  willing."  Sena 
tors  did  vote  the  measure  "down,"  and  continued  to  vote  it 
down  at  every  session  of  Congress  until  the  time  of  Mr. 
Sumner's  death  in  1874;  for  Mr.  Sumner  introduced  it  at  every 
session,  and  in  his  last  moments  on  his  dying  bed  murmured: 
"Don't  let  Civil  Rights  fail."  And  his  Republican  colleagues, 
remembering  this  injunction  and,  heeding  this  voice  from  the 
tomb,  passed  the  Sumner  Civil  Rights  Bill  at  the  next  session 
of  Congress  after  its  author's  death,  though  the  Supreme 
Court  declared  it  unconstitutional. 


3.  This  was  known  as  the  Sumner  Civil  Rights  Bill.  It  was  finally  passed 
March  1,  1875,  after  Mr.  Sumner's  death,  and  declared  unconstitutional.  See 
Appendix. 


[195] 


CHAPTER  XXIII 


General  Amnesty — Sumner's  Civil  Rights  Bill  and  the  Battle  Over 
It — Civil  Rights  Defeated — Sumner's  Extemporaneous  Speech 
—Death  of  Sumner— Civil  Rights  Bill  Passed  at  Last. 

The  question  of  granting  amnesty  to  the  participants  in  the 
rebellion  began  to  occupy  the  mind  of  the  people  and  of  Con 
gress  very  soon  after  the  cessation  of  hostilities ;  but  the  con 
ditions  were  such  that  every  time  the  matter  made  its  appear 
ance  in  any  tangible  form,  it  was  smitten  down.  There  were 
many  who,  like  President  Johnson,  thought  an  amnesty  act 
should  have  been  among  the  first  things  to  be  passed  by  Con 
gress  after  the  surrender  of  Lee.  A  vast  majority,  however, 
both  inside  and  out  of  Congress,  thought  that  there  was  no 
necessity  for  haste,  especially  in  view  of  the  well-known  feel 
ing  of  the  southern  people  as  evidenced  by  their  continued 
hostile  attitude  towards  the  government  in  consequence  of 
which  there  was  inserted  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  a 
clause  expressly  disfranchising  certain  classes  who  took  a 
leading  part  in  the  rebellion.  Whenever  one  of  these  pro 
scribed  persons  desired  to  vote  or  run  for  an  office,  it  was 
necessary  to  have  Congress  remove  his  disabilities.  This  was 
done  from  time  to  time  and  numbers  were  re-enfranchised  in 
this  manner  on  their  petition  to  Congress.  Several  attempts  at 
the  passage  of  a  general  amnesty  bill  had  failed.  When  Con 
gress  met  in  December,  1870,  conditions  were  much  more  fav 
orable  for  the  passage  of  such  a  measure  than  they  had  been  at 
any  time  before,  as  the  framework  of  reconstruction  was  re 
garded  as  having  been  completed  and  about  all  the  states  had 
returned  to  the  Union.  The  House  accordingly  passed  a  gen 
eral  amnesty  act  among  the  first  things  it  did  at  this  session. 
When  the  bill  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate,  however,  Senator 
Sumner  moved  to  amend  it  by  attaching  his  Civil  Rights  bill, 
which  he  had  constantly  kept  before  the  Senate  at  each  ses 
sion  and  never  lost  an  opportunity  of  pressing,  though  he  was 

[196] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

rarely  ever  able  to  get  it  beyond  an  adverse  report  from  the 
Judiciary  Committee  to  which  it  was  always  referred.  The 
measure  now  coming  up  as  an  amendment  to  the  important 
amnesty  bill,  the  Senate  was  compelled  to  vote  upon  it.  After 
a  long  debate  a  vote  was  reached  which  stood  28  to  28  when 
the  amendment  was  adopted  by  the  deciding  vote  of  the  Vice- 
President.  When  the  question  recurred  on  the  main  propo 
sition,  however,  the  whole  thing  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  33 
to  19,  a  two-thirds  vote  being  necessary.  On  May  13,  1871, 
General  Butler  reported  from  the  House  Judicary  Committee 
another  amnesty  bill  providing  in  simple  terms  for  the  re 
moval  of  all  disabilities  arising  out  of  war  or  on  account  of 
the  war,  excepting  from  its  provisions,  however,  members  of 
the  Confederate  government  and  persons  who  had  been  edu 
cated  at  West  Point  or  Annapolis  and  had  taken  part  in  the 
war  against  the  Union.  This  passed  under  a  suspension  of 
the  rules  on  the  same  day  it  was  reported.  At  this  point  Mr. 
Elliott  moved  to  instruct  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  report  a 
Civil  Rights  bill  forthwith,  but  the  motion  failed.  This 
House  bill  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate  on  May  21,  and  found 
Mr.  Sumner  again  ready  with  his  Civil  Rights  bill  as  an 
amendment.  When  the  Senate  voted  down  this  amendment 
by  a  vote  of  29  to  13,  Mr.  Sumner  declared  his  determination 
never  to  vote  for  amnesty  unless  it  should  be  preceded  by  or 
at  least  accompanied  with  a  civil  rights  measure ;  and  after 
another  effort  he  succeeded  in  getting  his  measure  again  be 
fore  the  Senate.  The  debate  as  to  the  relevancy  of  the  meas 
ure  to  the  main  bill  consumed  nearly  a  week  before  the 
Senate  finally  gave  in  and  decided  that  the  Civil  Rights  bill 
should  be  considered  and  voted  upon.  This  was  a  great  vic 
tory  for  Sumner,  who  was  now  being  supported  by  such  able 
colleagues  as  Senators  Edmunds,  Conklin  and  Nye.  Senator 
Carpenter,  the  very  talented  orator  and  tactician  from  Wis 
consin,  was  in  favor  of  the  measure  for  its  effects  upon  the 
South,  he  claimed,  regarding  it  simply  as  a  punishment,  but 
thought  it  unconstitutional,  on  which  account  he  worked  vig 
orously  against  it.  He  offered  as  a  substitute  for  the  Sumner 
bill,  a  measure  that  would  be  applicable  only  to  such  corpora- 

[197] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

tions  and  places  as  did  business  under  the  authority  of  a 
state,  while  the  Sumner  bill  took  in  hotels,  railroads  and 
everything  of  the  kind  generally  and  particularly  the  right  of 
colored  men  to  serve  on  juries.  The  Carpenter  substitute  was 
voted  down  and  the  fight  on  the  Sumner  bill  continued.  In 
deed,  the  Sumner  Civil  Rights  Bill  agitated  the  whole  country. 
It  was  the  theme  of  sermons,  the  subject  of  debate  in  lyceum 
and  school,  and  the  topic  to  which  leading  editors  daily  re 
ferred  in  their  papers.  The  most  bitter  attacks  were  made 
upon  Sumner  in  the  public  press  and  nearly  every  mail 
brought  him  letters  threatening  his  life ;  but  nothing  but 
death  caused  Mr.  Sumner  to  cease  his  efforts  to  have 
what  he  called  this  "capstone  placed  upon  the  column  of 
reconstruction."  By  his  earnestness  he  whipped  many  of  his 
lukewarm  colleagues  into  line  or  constrained  them  to  keep 
silent.  There  was  nothing  more  certain  than  that  amnesty 
had  to  come.  It  had  the  strongest  public  sentiment  in  its  favor. 
The  only  care  needed  was  to  hold  this  sentiment  in  check  un 
til  the  beneficiaries  of  the  act  should  fully  appreciate  it  as  an 
act  of  grace  rather  than  regard  it  as  a  concession  to  their  de 
mands.  On  the  other  hand,  civil  rights  was  a  matter  that 
might  easily  be  side-tracked  without  materially  affecting  the 
interests  of  the  dominant  party  to  which  the  Negroes  were 
destined  to  stick  at  all  events.  Sumner  had  succeeded  in  de 
feating  the  amnesty  bill  and  the  struggle  had  been  kept  up 
until  all  hands  were  sick  of  it.  And  so  on  May  21  (1871)  after 
a  long  day's  session,  it  was  decided  to  spend  the  evening  in 
debate  upon  the  amnesty  bill,  which  was  to  be  voted  on  the 
next  day  after  voting  upon  Sumner  Civil  Rights  Bill  which,  it 
was  agreed,  should  be  passed  at  the  same  time.  When  the 
session  was  prolonged  until  late  and  still  later  in  the  night 
many  of  the  Senators  left  for  their  homes,  and  among  these 
was  Mr.  Sumner.  Between  5  and  6  o'clock  the  next  morn 
ing,  when  there  was  scarcely  a  quorum  left  in  the  chamber, 
Mr.  Carpenter,  taking  advantage  of  the  absence  of  Mr.  Sum 
ner,  called  up  the  latter's  Civil  Rights  bill,  had  everything 
stricken  out  except  the  bare  title  and  had  inserted  his  (Car 
penter's)  substitute  Civil  Rights  bill  which  had  been  previously 

[198] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

rejected,  but  which  was  now  easily  passed  by  the  aid  of  the 
Democrats,  who  voted  for  it  to  a  man.  Mr.  Sumner,  who 
had  been  aroused  from  his  bed  and  informed  of  what  was 
being  done,  hurried  to  the  Senate,  but  arrived  just  too  late  to 
have  the  matter  held  up.  The  amnesty  bill  was  now  called  up 
and  passed,  the  Senate  having  technically  kept  its  word  both 
as  to  not  voting  "until  the  next  day"  and  also  as  to  voting  on 
civil  rights  before  passing  the  amnesty  bill.  Since  the  am 
nesty  bill  had  already  been  passed  by  the  House,  nothing  more 
remained  to  be  done  to  make  it  a  law  except  the  attachment 
of  the  President's  signature ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  civil 
rights  bill  having  originated  in  the  Senate,  emasculated  as  it 
was,  had  still  to  be  juggled  with  in  the  House,  where  its  fate 
was  doubtful.  Excited  by  the  trick  that  had  been  played  on 
him,  Mr.  Sumner  made  the  most  impassioned  extemporaneous 
speech  ever  attempted  by  him  in  Congress.  After  referring 
to  the  unfair  advantage  taken  to  pass  upon  such  important 
legislation  when  a  bare  quorum  of  the  Senate  was  present, 
Mr.  Sumner  said:  "I  sound  the  cry;  the  rights  of  the  colored 
people  have  been  sacrificed  in  this  chamber  where  the  Repub 
lican  party  has  a  large  majority ;  that  party  by  its  history,  its 
traditions  and  all  its  professions  bound  to  their  vindication. 
I  sound  the  cry.  Let  it  go  forth  that  the  sacrifice  has  been 
perpetrated.  Amnesty  has  been  adopted,  but  the  rights  of  the 
colored  race,  where  are  they?  Sir:  I  call  upon  the  colored 
people  to  take  notice  of  the  way  in  which  their  rights  are  pal 
tered  with.  I  wish  them  to  understand  that  here  in  this  cham 
ber  with  a  large  Republican  majority,  this  sacrifice  has  been 
accomplished,  and  let  them  see  how  it  was  done."  We  might 
here  add  that  the  sounding  of  that  cry  had  but  little  effect 
upon  the  colored  voters  in  connection  with  the  political  party 
whose  chief  representative  had  signed  the  proclamation  of 
their  freedom,  and  who,  with  a  loyalty  characteristic  of  the 
race,  voted  solidly  for  that  party  to  the  end  of  their  genera 
tion  notwithstanding  the  many  times  their  interests  were 
sacrificed  by  a  Congress  that  had  a  large  Republican  majority. 
Again  and  again  since  that  time  such  things  have  occurred  in 
the  same  chamber  where  there  was  a  Republican  majority, 

[199] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

that  might  justify  a  man  like  Sumner  in  "sounding  the  cry." 
Bills  intended  to  secure  fair  Federal  elections  j1  bills  in 
tended  to  extend  Federal  aid  to  education  when  it  was  plain 
ly  seen  that  the  southern  states  were  either  unable  or  un 
willing  longer  to  support  public  schools  for  colored  children,2 
have  all  died,  like  Sumner's  Civil  Rights  Bill,  in  the  Senate 
where  the  Republicans  had  a  large  majority.  Whatever  regret 
the  reformed  Republicans  may  have  on  account  of  having  be 
stowed  the  suffrage  upon  the  freedmen,  surely  the  old  party 
could  not  complain.  The  elective  franchise  was,  perhaps, 
never  used  more  conscientiously  than  by  the  freedmen.  So 
far  from  selling  their  vote,  many  of  them  suffered  not  only 
the  loss  of  employment  but  even  the  loss  of  life  itself  for  the 
sake  of  the  Republican  party  even  after  it  had  openly  ceased 
to  champion  their  cause,  which  attitude  was  more  than  em 
phasized  not  only  by  the  inactivity  of  Congressmen  but  by 
the  activity  of  Republican  judges  on  the  bench  of  the  highest 
court  in  the  land. 

When  the  Carpenter  substitute  Civil  Rights  Bill  reached  the 
House  it  was  deferred  and  kept  in  committee  until  June  7, 
1872,  when  it  was  called  up  and  an  endeavor  made  to  pass  it 
under  a  suspension  of  the  rules,  but  it  failed  by  a  vote  of  83  to 
73,  a  two-thirds  vote  being  necessary  to  pass  it.  There  were 
84  members  present  who  did  not  vote. 

But  Mr.  Sumner  did  not  give  up  the  fight.  When  the  Forty- 
third  Congress  met  in  December,  1873,  he  presented  a  peti 
tion  bearing  on  the  subject  which  contained  many  thousand 
signatures.  As  the  country  became  more  and  more  settled 
and  people  returned  to  their  daily  occupations  as  merchants, 
etc.,  less  and  less  interest  was  taken  in  what  Congress  was 
or  was  not  doing  about  such  matters  as  civil  rights  for  freed 
men  and  slower  and  slower  turned  the  reconstruction  mill. 
Then,  too,  the  great  champion  of  civil  rights  was  destined 
soon  to  lay  down  his  burden  and  rest ;  for  early  in  the  year 
1874,  March  11,  he  reached  the  state  in  which  all  men  are  un 
questionably  equal,  and  where  there  are  no  problems  for  the 


1.  Defeated   by    Elaine. 

2.  Defeated   by   Quay   and  Sherman. 


[200] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

future,  neither  of  races  nor  kindreds  nor  tongues.  Both  Sum- 
ner  and  Stevens,  two  of  the  most  conspicuous  champions  the 
colored  race  ever  had  in  Congress,  each  devoted  the  last  days 
of  his  career  to  a  single  issue  for  which  he  was  fighting  when 
death  closed  the  debate ;  with  Stevens  it  was  his  endeavor  to 
persuade  his  colleagues  to  provide  some  support  for  the 
penniless  freedmen ;  with  Sumner  it  was  civil  rights. 


[201| 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

The  Election  of  Hayes — The  Removal  of  Federal  Troops  from  the 
South  and  the  End  of  the  Carpet-Bag  Regime. 

The  next  national  act  of  more  or  less  consequence  to  the 
colored  people  was  the  removal  of  the  Federal  troops  from 
the  South  by  President  Hayes.  Attempts  have  been  made  to 
reflect  great  discredit  upon  Mr.  Hayes  because  he  ordered  the 
removal  of  these  troops  at  that  time,  but  if  there  was  any 
blame  attached  to  the  action,  it  would  hardly  seem  fair  to 
place  it  all  on  the  shoulders  of  Mr.  Hayes,  who  seems  to 
have  been  made  the  scapegoat  of  his  party.  The  circum 
stances  leading  up  to  the  nomination  and  the  election  of  Mr. 
Hayes  to  the  presidency  are  very  interesting,  and  to  tell  the 
whole  story  would  require  a  large  volume  in  itself.  There 
was  a  great  deal  of  excitement  throughout  the  country  just 
prior  to  the  assembling  of  the  Republican  National  Conven 
tion  in  1876,  caused  by  various  rumors  to  the  effect  that  Gen 
eral  Grant  would  be  nominated  for  a  third  term  as  President. 
Grant  himself  would  not  say  whether  or  not  he  would  run  if 
nominated,  but  spoke  of  the  matter  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
lead  the  public  to  believe  that  he  would  not  object  "if  the  ex 
igencies  of  his  party  demanded  it."  In  other  words,  as  they 
say,  he  placed  himself  "in  the  hands  of  his  friends."  Before 
the  convention  assembled,  the  House  of  Representatives,  then 
Democratic,  took  cognizance  of  the  matter  and  placed  on 
record  a  resolution  directly  condemning  the  third  term  scheme 
as  "undemocratic  and  unpatriotic."  The  vote  on  this  resolu 
tion  was  234  to  18,  embracing  in  the  affirmative  every  Demo 
cratic  member  and  all  but  18  of  the  Republicans.  There  were 
in  Congress,  however,  some  strong  supporters  of  Grant  for  a 
third  term  and  among  these  were  Senator  Conklin,  of  New 
York,  and  Senator  Morton,  of  Indiana.  When  Grant  finally 
withdrew  from  the  contest,  many  of  his  supporters  them 
selves  became  aspirants  for  the  nomination:  Morton,  Conk- 

[202] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

lin,  Bristow  (Grant's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury)  and  others, 
among  whom  were  James  G.  Elaine  and  R.  B.  Hayes. 

Of  all  the  candidates,  Mr.  Blaine  was  the  most  popular 
with  the  politicians.  He  had  been  for  six  years  Speaker  of 
the  House  and  had  become  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the 
minority  when  the  Republicans  lost  their  ascendancy  in  that 
body.  Hayes  had  been  twice  Governor  of  Ohio  but  was  little 
known  outside  of  his  state.  Bristow  had  just  created  a  boom 
in  his  favor  by  his  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  "Whiskey 
Ring."  Morton  was  well  known,  and  while  nothing  detri 
mental  could  be  said  about  him,  he  was  unable  to  unite  his 
party  on  him.  Blaine  would  have  evidently  received  the  nomi 
nation  but  for  the  fact  that  his  name  was  seriously  connected 
with  two  railroad  scandals,  the  Union  Pacific  &  Little  Rock 
and  the  Fort  Smith  roads.  The  investigation  into  these  affairs 
is  said  to  have  brought  a  great  deal  of  the  alleged  corruption 
dangerously  near  Elaine's  door,  and,  as  a  consequence,  blight 
ed  his  chances  for  the  nomination,  besides  he  had  the  power 
ful  opposition  of  Conklin,  then  at  the  very  height  of  his  power 
in  New  York.  At  the  opening  of  the  convention  Mr.  Blaine 
had  more  than  double  the  number  of  delegates  of  any  other 
one  of  the  aspirants,  but  after  the  first  ballot  his  strength  be 
gan  to  wane  until  the  fifth  ballot,  when  Mr.  Hayes  was  given 
384  out  of  the  756  votes  and  was  declared  nominated.  The 
years  between  1872  and  1876  were  memorable  for  panics  and 
hard  times,  and,  as  usual  in  such  cases,  the  people  were  in 
clined  to  blame  the  party  in  power  for  the  distressing  condi 
tions.  There  was  a  great  cry  for  "reform,"  a  call  for  a  "new 
man"  with  a  new  policy  as  against  what  they  called  "Grant- 
ism"  and  "Caesarism." 

The  Democrats  nominated  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  of  New  York. 
Mr.  Tilden's  record  was  clean  and  the  comparative  obscurity 
of  Mr.  Hayes  gave  him  little  advantage  over  his  able  Demo 
cratic  opponent.  Besides,  Mr.  Tilden  had  just  covered  himself 
with  glory  by  successfully  prosecuting  the  famous,  or  rather 
infamous,  "Tweed  Ring,"  by  which  course  he  won  the  enmity 
of  Tammany  Hall,  a  thing  in  itself  which  most  people  of  the 
time  seemed  to  have  regarded  as  a  sure  sign  of  political  purity. 

[203] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

The  platform  upon  which  Mr.  Hayes  invited  support  was  a 
clean-cut  instrument.  It  was  a  plea  for  the  union  of  the 
states  and  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution ;  for  the  liberty 
and  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law ;  for  the  vigorous  exer 
cise  of  constitutional  powers  in  the  enforcement  of  law  and 
order ;  for  the  most  earnest  support  of  the  free  school  system ; 
for  a  protective  tariff ;  for  pensioning  Federal  soldiers ;  for  re 
sumption  of  specie  payment.  The  campaign  was  rather  spirit 
less  and  tame.  On  the  morning  following  the  election  it  was 
claimed  and  generally  believed  that  Tilden  had  been  elected, 
having  carried  every  southern  state  besides  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Indiana  and  Connecticut,  giving  him  203  electoral 
votes  out  of  a  total  of  369.  After  this  early  announcement 
everybody  became  silent  during  the  rest  of  the  day,  but  on  the 
second  day  after  the  election  a  report  was  flashed  over  the 
country  to  the  effect  that  Hayes  had  carried  South  Carolina, 
Florida  and  Louisiana,  giving  him  a  majority  of  one  vote  in 
the  electoral  college.  Cries  of  fraud  were  rife  and  the  whole 
country  was  thrown  into  a  fierce  agitation.  There  were  ru 
mors  of  all  kinds  of  deals  being  consummated  for  one  purpose 
or  another,  but  no  one  seemed  able  to  fasten  on  to  anything 
definite.  The  key  to  a  cipher  dispatch  was  alleged  to  have 
been  found  shortly  after  this  time  which  revealed  a  deliberate 
plot  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  powers  of  both  parties  to  de 
fraud  Mr.  Tilden  out  of  his  seat  as  President.  It  was  claimed 
that  some  leading  Democrats  of  the  South  conspired  with  the 
Republicans  to  have  Hayes  seated  with  the  understanding 
that  the  Federal  troops  were  to  be  removed  from  the  South 
and  a  more  liberal  policy  pursued  in  dealing  with  that  section 
generally;  and  that  this  deal  was  the  more  easily  consum 
mated  because  it  was  known  that  all  sorts  of  fraud  had  been 
practiced  in  the  South  in  connection  with  the  election,  and  it 
was  feared  that  some  kind  of  investigation  might  follow  if  a 
more  serious  dispute  should  arise ;  while  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Republicans  were  willing  to  condone  the  alleged  fraud  on 
condition  that  Hayes  should  be  seated.  However  one  may 
think  about  the  rumors  afloat,  it  is  definitely  known  that  mat 
ters  were  terribly  mixed  up.  To  begin  with,  there  were  two 

[204] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

sets  of  returns  and  certificates  from  South  Carolina,  Florida 
and  Oregon.  The  question  as  to  how  the  electoral  votes 
should  be  counted  became  so  grave  that  Congress  had  to  in 
tervene  by  an  Act  establishing  the  Electoral  Commission  of 
March  4,  1877.  This  commission  was  composed  of  fifteen 
members,  eight  Republicans  and  seven  Democrats ;  and  there 
is  little  doubt  but  that  the  seating  of  Hayes  as  President  in 
stead  of  Tilden  was  due  wholly  to  the  make-up  of  this  com 
mission,  for  every  man  voted  for  his  party  candidate,  and  by 
a  process  of  "counting  in  and  counting  out"  as  it  is  said,  the 
Presidency  fell  to  Hayes.  The  popular  vote  for  Tilden  was 
very  much  larger  than  that  for  Hayes,  and  this  fact,  on  be 
coming  known,  added  it's  quota  to  the  general  excitement  of 
the  time.  Whether  there  was  any  agreement  or  understand 
ing  with  Mr.  Hayes  and  his  friends  about  removing  the  troops 
or  not,  it  was  quite  a  natural  thing  to  consider,  under  the  cir 
cumstances.  The  country  had  been  sufficiently  stirred  over 
recent  events  and  anything  that  tended  to  allay  feeling  and 
bring  about  better  conditions  would  naturally  appeal  to  those 
in  control  of  the  government.  The  times  for  some  considerable 
period  before  this  had  been  panicy  and  hard  and  the  grumb 
ling  on  the  part  of  the  southern  people  at  having  troops  quar 
tered  on  them  in  times  of  peace  was  beginning  to  re-echo  in 
the  North  and  West,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  plat 
form  upon  which  Mr.  Hayes  was  elected  had  a  decided  ring 
for  the  enforcement  of  law  and  order  by  use  of  the  Federal 
arms,  if  necessary.  At  all  events,  the  Federal  troops  were  re 
moved  from  the  South  and  the  reconstruction  governments  in 
that  section  began  at  once  to  disintegrate ;  the  Carpet-baggers 
had  to  leave  in  the  wake  of  the  soldiers  and  the  whole  Repub 
lican  party  in  the  southern  states  became  demoralized  and  has 
been  demoralized  ever  since. 

The  reconstruction  period  proper  may  be  said  to  have  end 
ed  with  President  Grant's  second  term.  After  this  time  there 
was  not  only  a  cessation  of  such  legislation  but  an  apparent 
reaction  in  the  other  direction.  Many  of  the  statutes  passed 
between  1865  and  1875  were  either  annulled  by  the  courts, 
openly  repudiated  by  the  states  or  smothered  to  death  by  an 

[205] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

adverse  public  sentiment.  But  the  most  vital  portion  of  the 
legislation  enacted  with  a  special  view  to  the  interest  of  the 
colored  people  still  remains  and  always  must  remain  because 
these  statutes  and  regulations,  like  the  fortunes  of  the  colored 
people  themselves,  are  connected  and  inseparably  bound  with 
the  general  welfare  of  the  nation.  The  last  three  amendments 
to  the  Constitution  are  the  bulwarks  not  only  of  the  colored 
man's  liberty,  but  must  be  regarded  with  an  equally  jealous 
eye  by  every  member  of  our  heterogeneous  population.  The 
Fourteenth  Amendment  especially  is  not  only  the  palladium 
of  the  people's  liberty,  but  business  enterprises  in  corporate 
form  find  in  this  amendment  an  harbor  of  refuge.  Then  there 
is  our  great  free  school  system,  though  deformed  and  much 
changed  from  what  it  was  in  its  fair  infancy  in  the  South,  it 
still  remains  a  monument  to  the  constructive  genius  of  the 
carpet-bagger. 


[206] 


CHAPTER  XXV 


The  Education  of  the  Colored  People— Ante-Bellum  Teachers  and 
Promoters  of  Education — The  Beginning  of  the  Higher  Edu 
cation — The  work  of  General  Howard's  Bureau — The  Begin 
ning  of  the  Free  Public  School  Under  Government  Supervision 
— The  Final  Turning  Over  of  Everything  to  the  States — The 
State  Policy:  Disfranchisement  of  Negroes;  Curtailment  of 
School  Privileges ;  Discriminations  Countenanced  by  the 
Courts— The  End. 

Most  all  history  begins  in  romance ;  and  scarcely  anything 
more  romantic  can  be  found  than  an  account  of  the  early 
struggle  to  educate  the  children  of  the  colored  race  in  Ameri 
ca.  While  public  records  abound  in  statutes  and  regulations 
making  it  a  crime  or  at  least  some  grade  of  a  public  offense 
to  teach  Negroes,  there  is  little  or  nothing  in  such  records  to 
show  how  the  movement  in  the  other  direction  actually 
started.  For  information  concerning  these  beginnings,  there 
fore,  one  must  turn  to  the  lives  of  individuals  and  the  records 
of  private  institutions. 

Among  the  earliest  efforts  in  this  direction  was  the  school 
'established  by  Anthony  Benezet,  a  Quaker,  at  Philadelphia, 
in  about  the  year  1770.  After  this  there  were  various  other 
•efforts  in  a  smaller  way,  perhaps,  made  in  and  about  Phila 
delphia,  to  afford  some  educational  facilities  to  the  colored 
people.  All  of  these  were  taken  under  a  sort  of  recognition 
by  the  Board  of  Control  of  Philadelphia  in  1822.1  About  ten 
years  later  or  in  1830,  Richard  Humphreys,  who  was  also  a 
Philadelphia  Quaker,  left  a  bequest  of  ten  thousand  dollars 
to  be  used  for  the  education  of  the  colored  youth.  Some  six 
persons,  all  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends  or  Quakers, 
constituted  themselves  trustees,  took  over  the  fund  and  set 
about  the  work  of  establishing  a  school  upon  the  Hum 
phrey's  foundation.  After  some  twenty  years  these  trustees 
succeeded  in  securing  a  building  within  the  city  limits  for 
their  purpose  and  established  the  Institute  for  Colored  Youth 

1.  See  Curtis'  Hist,  of  Pub.  Schools  of  Phila.,  p.  15. 

[207] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

in  1851.  This  was  made  a  sort  of  graded  or  high  school  and 
continued  as  such  until  it  was  moved  to  Cheyney,  in  Chester 
County,  Pa.,  in  1902,  where  the  work  is  still  carried  on  with 
particular  attention  to  certain  industrial  features.  Meager  as 
these  few  facilities  were,  they  made  Philadelphia  a  sort  of 
educational  center  for  colored  people.  There  were  some 
worthy  efforts  made  in  this  direction  about  this  same  period 
in  some  other  parts  of  the  country ;  notably  among  these  was 
the  school  for  colored  girls  opened  by  Miss  Prudence  Cran- 
dall,  at  Canterbury,  Conn.,  in  1831,  on  account  of  which  she 
was  mobbed  and  outraged  in  every  conceivable  manner. 

At  the  "First  Annual  Convention  of  the  People  of  Color," 
held  at  Philadelphia,  in  1831,  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
devise  a  plan  whereby  funds  might  be  raised  for  the  purpose 
of  starting  a  school.  This  committee  afterwards  reported  to 
the  convention  that  a  plan  had  been  submitted  by  Messrs. 
Garrison  and  Tappan  and  Rev.  S.  S.  Jocelyn,  who  were  pres 
ent  and  addressed  the  meeting,  for  the  liberal  "education  of 
young  men  of  color  on  the  manual  labor  system."  The  plan 
contemplated  the  establishment  of  a  school  at  New  Haven 
as  soon  as  twenty  thousand  dollars  could  be  raised.  New 
Haven  had  been  selected  as  the  location  of  the  institution  "on 
account  of  the  liberality  of  the  people  of  Connecticut — the 
people  are  friendly,  pious  and  humane."  Little  did  they  dream 
that  within  two  years  from  that  time  the  Connecticut  Legis 
lature,  at  the  instance  of  "the  good  people  of  Canterbury," 
was  destined  to  pass  a  law  making  it  a  serious  offense  to 
maintain  a  boarding  school  for  Negroes  anywhere  in  the 
state,  in  order  to  break  up  Miss  Crandall's  school. 

There  was  also  Miss  Myrtilla  Miner,  who,  after  having  seen 
much  of  slavery  while  teaching  a  private  school  in  Missis 
sippi,  went  to  Washington  in  1851  and  with  the  one  hundred 
dollars  which  she  had  saved,  opened  the  first  school  for 
colored  girls  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Miss  Miner  began 
with  six  pupils  in  a  wreck  of  a  building,  but  within  a  year  she 
had  forty  pupils  and  a  building  worth  more  than  four  thou 
sand  dollars,  one  thousand  of  which  having  been  donated  by 
Mrs.  Stowe  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  "Uncle  Tom's 

[208] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

Cabin."  Like  Miss  Crandall,  Miss  Miner  had  visited  upon  her 
nearly  every  species  of  outrage  known  to  the  catalogue  of 
villiany.  Then  there  were  a  few  more  or  less  obscure  insti 
tutions,  like  Oberlin,  under  President  Finney,  that  braved  the 
tide  of  odium  and  public  contempt  to  admit  a  few  colored 
students.  During  and  just  after  the  war,  however,  heroes  and 
heroines  in  this  field  came  thick  and  fast. 

There  was  Dr.  Tupper,  who  went  into  the  woods  of  North 
Carolina  while  they  were  yet  dim  with  the  smoke  of  battle 
and  resounding  with  the  echoing  footsteps  of  retreating 
troops,  bought  land  with  the  three  hundred  dollars  which  he 
had  saved  as  a  private  in  .the  army,  and  with  his  own  hands 
hewed  the  logs  and  constructed  the  building  that  was  to  be 
come  Shaw  University ;  and  his  magnificent  wife,  one  of  New 
England's  most  choice  women,  gave  her  dowry  to  this  project 
of  her  husband,  and  when  he  died  a  few  years  ago,  leaving  her 
poor  and  alone,  she  only  requested  to  be  permitted  to  pass  the 
remainder  of  her  days  in  one  of  the  university  buildings. 
There  was  Rev.  J.  G.  Fee,  who  was  driven  from  his  father's 
roof  in  Kentucky  for  founding  Berea  College ;  and  Armstrong, 
to  whose  memory  Hampton  Institute  is  a  fitting  monument. 
And  there  are  hundreds  of  noble  women  who  went  South  to 
be  abused  and  many  of  them  to  die  while  trying  to  help  the 
union  soldiers  or  to  encourage  the  freedmen  in  their  struggle 
to  learn.2  These  nurses,  etc.,  who  were  with  the  Union  army 
having  found  the  Negroes  very  apt  and  anxious  to  learn,  vol 
unteered  their  services  as  teachers,  and  by  their  reports  in 
duced  many  others  to  go  into  this  field.  Many  of  the  depart 
ment  clerks  at  Washington  constituted  themselves  into  a 
teaching  force  and  opened  up  night  schools.  Howard  Uni 
versity,  now  by  far  the  largest  and  best  equipped  institution 
for  the  higher  education  of  the  Negroes  in  the  country,  act 
ually  grew  out  of  these  unorganized  efforts  on  the  part  of  de 
partment  clerks,  which  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
leading  men  of  the  nation  at  Washington.  General  Howard, 
who  was  in  charge  of  the  Bureau  of  Freedmen,  Refugees  and 
Abandoned  Lands,  was  given  almost  unlimited  power  to  aid 


2.  See  "The  Negro  Common  School,"  Atlanta  Univ.  Pubs.,  by  DuBois,   1901. 

[209] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

and  succor  his  wards  in  any  direction  his  discretion  might  dic 
tate  ;  and  as  the  representative  of  the  government,  his  bureau 
began  at  once  to  assume  control  and  direct  the  organization 
of  the  work  which  was  to  form  the  basis  of  a  public  free 
school  system. 

Miss  Miner's  school  was  incorporated  by  Congress  in  1863, 
about  twelve  years  after  it  was  established.  This  was  about 
the  first  time  Congress  had  taken  any  definite  or  decided  ac 
tion  with  regard  to  anything  in  the  line  of  education  for  col 
ored  people  although  it  was  by  no  means  the  first  time  the  at 
tention  of  that  body  had  been  called  to  the  matter  in  one  way 
or  another.  In  1862  Mr.  Edward  H.  Rollins,  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  in  bringing  forward  his  bill  for  the  abolition  of  the 
Black  Codes  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  which  was  approved 
May  21  of  that  year,  had  attached  to  the  measure  a  provision 
setting  aside  ten  per  cent,  of  all  the  taxes  paid  by  the  colored 
people  of  the  District  for  the  education  of  their  children. 
Under  this  act  trustees  to  receive  and  disburse  this  fund 
were  appointed.  By  an  Act  passed  July  23,  1866,  the  cities  of 
Washington  and  Georgetown  were  required  to  pay  over  to 
the  trustees  of  the  Colored  Schools  of  the  District  of  Colum 
bia  such  proportionate  share  of  all  moneys  collected  for  edu 
cational  purposes  as  the  number  of  colored  children  of  school 
age  should  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  both  white  and  col 
ored  children  of  such  age.  The  effect  of  this  law  was  to  equal 
ize  the  school  advantages  between  the  races  without  regard 
to  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  by  either ;  and  this  is  the  law  in 
all  the  states,  perhaps,  though  it  is  deliberately  ignored  in  the 
South  generally.3 

The  appropriation  for  the  support  of  the  Freedmen's  Bu 
reau -for  the  year  1866  carried  a  large  item  for  educational 
purposes.  General  Howard  had  been  so  successful  in  the  or 
ganization  of  schools,  etc.,  that  Congress  was  inclined  to  deal 
liberally  with  his  bureau  in  appropriating  funds  for  this  pur 
pose.  He  dwelt  largely  upon  this  branch  of  his  work  in  his 
report  to  Congress,  in  1866,  according  to  which  there  were 
eighty  thousand  children  under  instruction  by  teachers  con- 


3.  See  Appendix  for  Court  Decisions. 

[210] 


THE    QUESTION   BEFORE    CONGRESS 

nected  with  this  bureau.  General  Howard  was  authorized  to 
co-operate  with  such  benevolent  societies,  etc.,  as  were  mak 
ing  any  organized  effort  to  establish  institutions  for  the  edu 
cation  of  the  colored  youth ;  and  in  this  way  he  was  enabled 
to  assist,  m'ore  or  less,  in  the  establishment  of  about  all  of  the 
older  institutions  devoted  to  this  purpose  throughout  the 
South.  No  such  aid  could  be  given,  however,  except  there 
was  a  duly  and  properly  organized  body  authorized  to  receive 
it,  and  which  could  show  some  progress  in  the  work  as  well  as 
some  future  prospects.  The  American  Missionary  Association, 
which  at  the  time  was  Congregational  in  the  broadest  sense, 
consisting  of  prominent  me^n  and  women  of  all  denominations, 
was  enabled,  through  the  assistance  of  the  Freedmen's  Bu 
reau,  to  perfect  the  establishment  of  many  of  its  schools  in 
the  South.  The  amount  of  work  which  the  American  Mis 
sionary  Association  has  done  in  the  direction  of  affording  fa 
cilities  for  the  higher  education  of  the  Negroes  can  not  be 
over-estimated.  Its  influence  has  been  and  is  still  being  felt  in 
nearly  every  institution  of  the  kind  in  the  country.  Much  of 
the  money  disbursed  under  the  auspices  of  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  belonged,  more  or  less,  directly  to  the  Negroes  them 
selves,  having  been  back  pay  and  bounty  money  credited  to 
colored  soldiers  and  sailors. 

After  1863,  when  drafting  men  for  the  army  became  neces 
sary,  several  of  the  states  raised  funds  and  placed  them  at  the 
disposal  of  the  government  for  the  purpose  of  hiring  Negroes 
in  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas  as  soldiers  to  be  credited  to  the 
quota  of  the  states  raising  the  money;  and  it  is  well  known 
that  some  two  hundred  thousand  Negroes  enlisted  between 
1863  and  1865.  Their  anxiety  to  enlist,  looking  upon  the  act 
as  an  opportunity  to  strike  a  blow  for  their  liberty  rather  than 
to  make  money,  coupled  with  their  ignorance  of  geographical 
locations,  caused  the  identity  of  many  of  them  to  be  lost. 
This  was  especially  the  case  with  those  who  fell  in  battle,  as 
so  many  did.  The  bounty  money  and  wages  due  to  those  who 
perished  while  in  the  service  were  turned  over  to  the  Freed 
men's  Bureau  primarily  to  await  lawful  claimants.  Some 
thing  was  added  to  this  fund  also  by  General  Butler,  who, 

[211] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

having  observed  that  his  colored  troops  generally  seemed  to 
have  had  little  or  no  appreciation  for  money,  withheld  a  por 
tion  of  their  pay  for  the  benefit  of  their  wives  and  children. 
All  of  this  money  that  was  not  duly  claimed  very  properly 
found  its  way  into  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  Much  of  this 
money  collected  by  or  turned  over  to  the  Bureau  was  demand 
ed  and  paid  out ;  much  of  it  never  was  demanded  and  never 
will  be  paid  out  to  any  individual  claimant.4 

The  bill  passed  for  the  continuance  of  the  Freedmen's  Bu 
reau  for  one  year  from  July,  1868,  contained  a  clause  express 
ly  providing  that  all  money  not  otherwise  expended  by  the 
Bureau,  left  on  hand  from  funds  held  by  the  same  should  be 
used  for  the  education  of  the  freedmen  and  refugees.  This 
bill  also  gave  the  Bureau  authority  to  turn  over  all  its  school 
buildings  and  educational  paraphernalia  for  the  education  of 
freedmen  to  such  trustees,  corporations,  etc,  as  should  be  pre 
pared  to  assume  and  carry  on  the  work.  The  old  Bureau  was 
now  preparing  for  its  dissolution  and  soon  after  this  time  it 
began  to  relinquish  its  interests  in  the  freedmen  affairs  and 
to  turn  them  over  to  the  War  Department,  while  holding  and 
in  the  meantime  extending  its  supervision  over  matters  of 
education.  About  two  years  later  a  bill  was  passed  (March 
30,  1870)  formally  abolishing  all  except  the  educational  func 
tions  of  this  institution,  and  turning  over  all  else,  including 
the  collection  and  payment  of  bounties,  etc.,  to  colored 
soldiers  and  sailors,  to  the  War  Department.  Two  years  later, 
in  1872,  the  remainder  of  this  famous  institution  was  absorbed 
by  the  Interior  Department  when  it  became  known  as  the  Bu 
reau  of  Education  and  continued  to  encourage  and  foster  our 
general  free  school  system,  the  foundations  of  which  had  now 
been  pretty  securely  laid  in  the  South  by  the  reconstruction- 
ists.  In  the  meantime,  Congress  had  been  giving  considerable 


4.  While  the  author  was  employed  in  the  office  of  the  Treasurer  of  Howard 
University,  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  1896,  he  was  approached  by  an  aged  colored 
man,  who  came  to  inquire  as  to  the  location  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  He 
said  that  during  the  time  he  was  employed  as  a  cart  driver  under  the  aus 
pices  of  the  Bureau,  one-half  his  wages  was  retained  to  be  applied  to  the 
educational  fund  for  the  benefit  of  the  freedmen;  that  he  had  heard  that  they 
were  now  paying  the  money  back,  and  so  he  had  come  in  from  some  distance 
in  the  country  to  get  his  share*  There  seemed  to  be  little  doubt  about  the 
innocent  sincerity  of  this  old  man;  part  of  his  wages  had,  doubtless,  been  held 
up,  but  it  most  likely  had  been  done  by  some  unscrupulous  clerk  or  combina 
tion  of  clerks  to  cheat  him. 

[212] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

attention  to  the  free  school  scheme.  Mr.  James  M.  Ashley 
made  an  endeavor  to  have  a  national  free  school  system  estab 
lished  by  means  of  a  constitutional  amendment  (December 
10,  1867)  ;  and  a  short  while  later,  January  22,  1868,  Mr. 
George  W.  Julian  introduced  a  resolution  directing  the  House 
Committee  on  Education  and  Labor  to  report  a  bill  for  the 
establishment  of  a  free  school  system  for  the  education  of  all 
the  children  of  the  state  without  regard  to  race  or  color.  But 
inasmuch  as  the  states  seemed  more  or  less  willing  to  assume 
the  work  begun  by  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  to  carry  on 
the  same  as  a  state  obligation,  neither  the  Ashley  nor  the 
Julian  proposition  was  enacted  into  law.  Mr.  Hoar,  then  a 
Representative,  but  later  3.  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  act 
ually  reported  a  bill  proposing  national  aid  to  education,  but 
the  states  cried  "hands  off"  and  the  measure  failed.  The  same 
disposition  wras  shown  towards  the  Blair  bill  of  1889-90. 
There  was  an  essential  difference,  however,  between  the 
Hoar  measure  and  the  bill  urged  before  the  Fiftieth  Congress 
by  Senator  Blair.  The  trouble  in  1870,  which  Mr.  Hoar's 
measure  was  intended  to  remedy  was  the  apparent  reluctance 
on  the  part  of  some  of  the  states  to  suppport  the  free  schools, 
and  the  measure  aimed  to  give  the  Federal  Government  con 
trol  to  the  extent  of  compelling  the  states  to  afford  proper 
facilities,  provided  they  were  able  to  do  so,  and  upon  proof  of 
their  inability,  then  the  government  was  to  step  in  with  its 
support.  Mr.  Blair's  bill  presumed  inability  on  the  part  of 
the  states  in  the  first  place  and  undertook  to  offer  government 
aid  generally.  By  the  year  1890  the  southern  states  generally 
had  ceased  to  pretend  to  afford  adequate  educational  facilities 
to  their  colored  children ;  they  had  apparently  ceased  to 
try  or  even  to  desire  such  a  thing.  The  Republican  party 
pledged  itself  to  the  passage  of  the  Blair  bill  or  some  other 
legislation  of  the  same  or  similar  purport,  and  the  Blair  bill 
did  pass  the  House  by  a  large  majority  and  its  author  labored 
earnestly  to  get  it  through  the  Senate,  where  the  Republi 
cans  also  had  a  large  majority,  but  the  measure  failed. 

While  the  Hoar  measure  was  before  Congress  in  1870,  the 
school  situation  as  it  was  at  the  time,  was  pretty  thoroughly 

[213] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

discussed.  Mr.  Sumner  made  a  strenuous  effort  to  have  the 
color  line  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  but  failed. 
The  thinly  veiled  threats  on  the  part  of  Congress  as  revealed 
in  these  discussions,  to  take  the  whole  matter  of  the  common 
schools  in  hand  notwithstanding  the  desire  of  some  to  defer 
to  State  Rights,  caused  a  much  more  liberal  policy  to  be  pur 
sued  by  those  having  the  oversight  of  the  colored  schools 
throughout  the  country.  And  so  influenced,  perhaps,  at  once 
by  a  sense  of  duty  and  the  fear  that  further  manifestations 
of  stubbornness  would  likely  bring  harder  conditions  to  which 
the  national  government  would  require  them  to  conform,  the 
southern  states  began  to  take  hold  of  its  free  school  problem 
with  more  earnestness.  But  they  did  not  keep  up  these  efforts 
insofar  as  the  colored  schools  were  concerned.  From  a  more 
or  less  equitable  administration  of  the  systems  under  which 
all  the  children  of  the  state  were  treated  alike  in  theory  at 
least,  they  have  gone  back  step  by  step  from  the  advocacy  of 
the  doctrine  that  colored  children  need  a  different  sort  of  edu 
cation  from  that  of  other  children  until  the  stage  has  been 
reached  where  many  boldly  claim  that  they  should  have 
iw  education,  or  at  best,  nothing  more  than  the  mere  rudiments. 
But  this  position  is  consistent  and  is  the  only  logical  ground 
upon  which  those  can  stand  who  believe  that  all  Negroes  are 
and  of  right  ought  to  be,  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water. 
If  there  are  any  who  ought  to  be  held  to  drudgery  by  social 
custom,  if  not  by  civil  law,  they  should  be  so  conditioned  as 
to  enable  others  the  more  easily  to  exploit  their  labor.  De 
grade  an  ignorant  man  sufficiently  and  he  will  become  con 
tented  ;  make  him  ignorant  and  the  degradation  will  take 
care  of  itself ;  therefore  those  who  wish  to  exploit  the  labor 
of  others,  strive  to  keep  the  latter  ignorant.  The  separate 
school  for  colored  children  has  lent  itself  beautifully  to  this 
scheme ;  so  in  the  South  we  see,  in  more  or  less  thickly  in 
habited  parts,  schools  for  whites  running  nine  months  while 
those  for  others  are  open  for  four  or  perhaps  five  months ;  in 
less  densely  populated  districts  we  see  some  sort  of  school 
for  whites  but  none  for  others. 

The  public  schools  even  among  the  whites  of  the  South  irx 

[2:4] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  beginning  had  to  struggle  against  the  "old  field"  school, 
and  the  aristocratic  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  "select  private 
school,"  which  institutions  were  almost  as  characteristic  of 
the  South  as  was  slavery ;  for  wide,  indeed,  was  the  gulf 
that  divided  the  wealthy  from  the  poor  whites  in  the  South 
in  the  days  gone  by,  and  the  children  of  the  two  classes 
could  have  no  intercourse  with  each  other  whatever  in  school 
or  elsewhere. 

And  so  the  cord,  hard  and  tense  with  years  of  oppression, 
that  was  cut  in  1863,  let  the  pendulum  of  history  swing  at 
once  through  a  mighty  arc  only  to  be  brought  back  by  the 
gravitation  of  conservatism  far  in  the  direction  from  which 
it  started.  The  privilege  of  citizenship  and  other  priv 
ileges  bestowed  upon  the  colored  people  in  the  late  slave 
states  which  were  at  first  attacked  by  the  mob,  then  con 
tested  in  politics,  finally  have  been  largely  taken  away  by 
the  law.  The  highest  courts  in  the  land  have  declared  that 
the  nation  that  had  power  to  bestow  these  privileges  is 
powerless  to  protect  the  intended  beneficiaries  of  the  priv 
ileges  in  the  enjoyment  of  them  over  the  objections  of  the 
individual  states.  Presidents  and  other  high  national  of 
ficials,  who  once  prated  about  the  "equality  of  all  before 
the  law,"  now  declare  that  "it  is  not  time  for  our  colored 
citizens  to  expect  to  enjoy  the  full  privileges  of  their  citizen 
ship."  How  much  further  the  pendulum  may  swing  in  this 
backward  direction  remains  to  be  seen.  But  the  day  is  past 
when  any  party  will  accept  the  race  question  as  an  issue  in 
politics.  Things  like  the  Brownsville  affair5  may  loom  up 
large  and  seem  of  great  significance ;  the  welkin  at  times 
may  yet  ring  with  dim  echoes  of  the  past,  but  the  race 
question  in  the  United  States  as  it  once  was,  will  never 
again  be  THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS. 


5.  The  matter  of  discharge  of  certain  soldiers  of  the  Twenty-fifth  Regiment 
(colored),  without  honor,  by  President  Roosevelt,  was  the  subject  of  a  long 
Congressional  investigation,  but  the  order  was  never  revoked. 


[215] 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX  A 


AMNESTY    PROCLAMATION,    DECEMBER   8,    1863 

Whereas,  in  and  by  the  Constitution  it  is  provided  that  the  Presi 
dent  "shall  have  power  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardons  for  offenses 
against  the  United  States  except  in  case  of  impeachment ;"  and 

Whereas,  there  is  a  rebellion  now  in  existence  whereby  the  loyal 
governments  of  several  states  have  for  a  long  time  been  subverted, 
and  many  persons  have  committed  and  are  now  guilty  of  treason 
against  the  United  States,  and 

Whereas,  with  reference  to  said  rebellion  and  treason,  laws  have 
been  enacted  by  Congress  declaring  forfeitures  and  confiscation  of 
the  property  and  liberation  of  the  slaves,  all  upon  terms  and  condi 
tions  therein  stated;  and  also  declaring  that  the  President  shall 
be  authorized  at  any  time  thereafter  by  proclamation,  to  extend  to 
persons  who  have  participated  in  the  existing  rebellion  in  any  state 
or  part  thereof,  pardon  and  amnesty,  with  such  exceptions  and  at 
such  times  and  on  such  conditions  as  he  may  deem  wise  and  expedi 
ent  for  the  public  welfare,  and 

Whereas,  the  congressional  declaration  for  limited  and  condition 
al  pardons  accords  with  well  established  judicial  expositions  of  the 
pardoning  power;  and 

Whereas,  with  reference  to  such  rebellion  the  President  of  the 
United  States  has  issued  several  proclamations  with  provisions  in 
regard  to  the  liberation  of  the  slaves  ;  and 

Whereas,  it  is  now  desired  by  some  persons  heretofore  engaged  in 
said  rebellion  to  assume  their  allegiance  to  the  United  States  and  to 
re-inaugurate  loyal  state  governments  within  and  for  their  re 
spective  states  : 

Therefore,  I,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States,  do 
proclaim,  declare  and  make  known  to  all  persons  who  have  directly 
or  indirectly  or  by  implication,  participated  in  the  existing  rebellion, 
except  as  hereinafter  excepted,  that  a  full  pardon  is  hereby  granted 
to  them  and  each  of  them  with  restoration  to  all  rights  and  property 
except  as  to  slaves  and  in  proper  cases  where  the  rights  of  third 
parties  shall  have  intervened,  and  upon  condition  that  every  such 
person  shall  take  and  subscribe  to  an  oath  thence  forward  to  keep 
and  maintain  such  oath  inviolate,  and  which  oath  shall  be  registered 
for  permanent  preservation  and  shall  be  of  the  tenor  and  effect  fol 
lowing  to  wit:  I,  ,  do  solemnly  swear  in  the  presence  of 

Almighty  God,  that  I  will  henceforth  support,  protect  and  defend 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  Union  of  the  states 
thereunder,  and  that  I  will  in  like  manner  abide  by  and  faithfully 
support  all  the,  acts  of  Congress  passed  during  the  existing  rebellion 
with  reference  to  the  slaves,  so  long  and  so  far  as  not  repealed, 
modified  or  held  void  by  the  Supreme  Court;  and  that  I  will  in  like 
manner  abide  by  and  faithfully  support  all  proclamations  of  the 

[219] 


QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

t  made  during  the  existing  rebellion  having  reference  to  the 

3  long  and  so  far  as  not  modified  or  declared  void  by  de- 

f  the  Supreme  Court,  so  help  me  God. 

:rsons  excepted  from  the  provisions  of  the  foregoing  are  all 
who  are  or  who  shall  have  been  civil  or  diplomatic  officers  or  agents 
of  the  so-called  Confederate  Government;  all  who  are  or  who  shall 
have  been  military  or  naval  officers  of  the  so-called  Confederate 
Government  above  the  rank  of  colonel  in  the  army  or  lieutenant  in 
the  navy;  all  who  have  left  judicial  stations  under  the  United  States 
to  aid  in  the  rebellion,  and  all  who  have  engaged  in  any  way  in  treat 
ing  colored  persons  or  white  persons  in  charge  of  such  otherwise 
than  as  lawful  prisoners  of  war  and  which  persons  may  have  been 
found  in  the  United  States  service  as  soldiers,  seamen  or  in  any 
other  capacity. 

I  do  further  proclaim,  declare  and  make  known  that  whenever  in 
any  of  the  States  of  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Tennessee, 
Alabama,  Georgia,  Florida,  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina,  a  num 
ber  of  persons  not  less  than  one-tenth  of  the  number  of  votes  cast 
in  such  states  in  the  Presidential  election  in  the  year  A.  D.  1860, 
each  being  a  qualified  voter  by  the  election  laws  of  the  states  exist 
ing  immediately  before  the  so-called  act  of  secession,  and  excluding 
all  others,  shall  re-establish  a  state  government  which  shall  be  re 
publican  in  form  and  in  no  ways  contravening  said  oath,  such  shall 
be  recognized  as  the  true  government  of  the  state  and  the  state 
shall  receive  thereunder  the  benefits  of  the  constitutional  provision 
which  declares  that  the  "United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every 
state  in  the  Union  a  republican  form  of  government  and  shall  pro 
tect  each  of  them  against  invasion  and  on  the  application  of  the 
legislature  or  executive  (when  the  legislature  can  not  be  convened) 
against  domestic  violence." 

I  do  further  proclaim,  declare  and  make  known  that  any  provision 
which  may  be  adopted  by  such  government  in  relation  to  the  freed 
people  of  such  state  which  shall  recognize  and  declare  their  perma 
nent  freedom,  provide  for  their  education  which  may  yet  be  con 
sistent  as  a  temporary  arrangement,  with  their  present  condition 
as  a  laboring,  landless,  homeless  class,  will  not  be  objected  to  by 
the  national  Executive. 

It  is  suggested  as  not  improper  that  in  the  construction  of  a  loyal 
state  government  in  any  state,  the  name  of  the  state,  sub-division, 
the  constitution  and  general  code  of  laws  as  they  were  before  the 
rebellion,  be  maintained,  subject  only  to  the  modifications  made 
necessary  by  the  conditions  hereinbefore  stated,  and  such  others,  if 
any,  not  contravening  said  conditions,  and  which  may  be  deemed  ex 
pedient  by  those  framing  the  new  state  government. 

To  avoid  misunderstanding  it  may  be  proper  to  say  that  this  proc 
lamation,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  state  governments,  has  no  reference 
to  states  wherein  loyal  state  governments  have  all  the  while  been 
maintained.  It  may  be  proper  to  further  say  that  whether  members 
sent  to  Congress  from  any  state  shall  be  admitted  to  seats  consti 
tutionally  rests  exclusively  with  the  respective  Houses  and  not  to 
any  extent  with  the  Executive.  And  still  further,  that  this  proclama 
tion  is  intended  to  present  to  the  people  of  the  states  wherein  the 
national  authority  has  been  subverted,  a  mode  in  and  by  which  the 
national  authority  and  loyal  state  governments  may  be  re-established 
within  said  states  or  in  any  of  them,  and  while  the  mode  presented 

[220] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

is  the  best  the  Executive  can  suggest  with  present  impressions,  it 
must    not    be    understood    that    no    other    possible    mode    would    be 
acceptable. 
Given  under  my  hand,  etc.,  at  Washington,  December  8,  1863. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN,  President,  etc. 
WILLIAM  H.   SEWARD,  Secretary,  etc. 


PROCLAMATION 

Whereas,  at  the  late  session.  Congress  passed  a  bill  guaranteeing 
to  certain  states  whose  governments  have  been  usurped  or  over 
thrown,  a  republican  form  of  government,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
annexed;  and 

Whereas,  the  said  bill  was  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  for  his  approval  less  than  one  hour  before  the  sine  die 
adjournment  of  said  session,  and  was  not  signed  by  him;  and 

Whereas,  the  said  bill  cpntains  among  other  things,  a  plan  for 
restoring  the  states  in  rebellion  to  their  proper  political  relations 
to  the  Union,  which  plan  expressed  the  sense  of  Congress  upon  the 
subject,  and  which  it  is  now  thought  fit  to  lay  before  the  people  for 
their  consideration; 

Now,  therefore,  I,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United 
States,  do  proclaim,  declare  and  make  known  that  I  am,  as  I  was  in 
December  last,  when  by  proclamation  I  propounded  a  plan  for  res 
toration,  unprepared  by  formal  approval  of  this  bill  to  be  inflexibly 
committed  to  any  single  plan  of  restoration,  and  while  I  am  also  un 
prepared  to  say  that  the  free-state  constitutions  and  governments 
already  adopted  and  installed  in  Arkansas  and  Louisiana  shall  be 
set  aside  and  held  for  naught,  thereby  repelling  and  discouraging 
loyal  citizens  who  have  set  up  the  same  as  to  further  effort,  or  to 
declare  a  constitutional  competency  in  Congress  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  states,  but  am  at  the  same  time  sincerely  hoping  and  expect 
ing  that  a  constitutional  amendment  abolishing  slavery  throughout 
the  nation  may  be  adopted ; 

Nevertheless,  I  am  fully  satisfied  with  the  system  of  restoration 
contained  in  the  bill,  and  as  one  very  proper  for  the  loyal  people  of 
any  state  choosing  to  adopt  it;  and  that  I  am,  and  at  all  times  shall 
be,  prepared  to  give  executive  aid  and  assistance  to  any  such  people, 
so  soon  as  the  military  resistance  to  the  United  States  shall  have 
been  suspended  in  any  such  state,  and  the  people  thereof  shall  have 
sufficiently  resumed  their  obedience  to  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  in  which  case  military  governors  will  be  ap 
pointed,  with  discretion  to  proceed  according  to  the  bill. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  caused 
the  seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  8th  day  of  July,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-four,  and  of  the 
year  of  Independence  of  the  United  States,  the  eighty-ninth. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 


PROTEST   OF   SENATOR  WADE   ET   AL. 
To  the  Supporters  of  the  Government: 

We  have  read  with  surprise,  but  not  without  indignation,  the  proc 
lamation  of  the  President  of  the  8th  of  July,  1864. 

[221] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

The  supporters  of  the  Administration  are  responsible  to  the  coun 
try  for  its  conduct;  and  it  is  their  right  and  duty  to  check  the  en 
croachments  of  the  Executive  on  the  authority  of  Congress,  and  re 
quire  it  to  confine  itself  to  its  proper  sphere. 

It  is  impossible  to  pass  in  silence  this  proclamation  without  neglect 
of  that  duty;  and  having  taken  as  much  responsibility  as  any  others 
in  supporting  the  Administration,  we  are  not  disposed  to  fail  in  the 
other  duty  of  asserting  the  rights  of  Congress. 

The  President  did  not  sign  the  bill  "to  guarantee  to  certain  states 
whose  governments  have  been  usurped,  a  republican  form  of  govern 
ment,"  passed  by  the  supporters  of  the  Administration  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress  after  mature  deliberation. 

The  bill  did  not,  therefore,  become  law;  and  it  is,  therefore,  noth 
ing. 

The  proclamation  is  neither  an  approval  nor  a  veto  of  the  bill;  it 
is,  therefore,  a  document  unknown  to  the  laws  and  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

So  far  as  it  contains  an  apology  for  not  signing  the  bill,  it  is  a 
political  manifesto  against  the  friends  of  the  government. 

So  far  as  it  proposing  to  execute  the  bill,  it  is  not  law;  it  is  a  grave 
Executive  usurpation. 

It  is  fitting  that  the  fact  necessary  to  enable  the  friends  of  the  Ad 
ministration  to  appreciate  the  apology  and  the  usurpation,  be  spread 
before  them. 

The  proclamation  says : 

"And,  whereas,  the  said  bill  was  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  for  his  approval  less  than  one  hour  before  the  sine 
die  adjournment  of  said  session,  and  was  not  signed  by  him." 

If  that  be  accurate,  still  this  bill  was  presented  with  other  bills 
that  were  signed. 

Within  that  hour,  the  time  for  the  sine  die  adjournment  had  been 
postponed  three  times  by  the  votes  of  both  Houses;  and  the  least 
intimation  of  a  desire  for  more  time  by  the  President  to  consider 
this  bill  would  have  secured  a  further  postponement. 

Yet  the  committee  sent  to  ascertain  whether  the  President  had 
any  further  communication  for  the  House  of  Representatives,  re 
ported  that  he  had  none;  and  the  friends  of  the  bill,  who  had 
anxiously  waited  on  him  to  ascertain  its  fate,  had  already  been  in 
formed  that  the  President  had  resolved  not  to  sign  it. 

The  time  of  presentation,  therefore,  had  nothing  to  do  with  his 
failure  to  approve  it. 

The  bill  had  been  discussed  and  considered  for  more  than  a  month 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  which  it  passed^  on  the  4th  of  May. 
It  was  reported  to  the  Senate  on  the  27th  of  May,  without  material 
amendment,  and  passed  the  Senate  absolutely  as  it  came  from  the 
House  on  the  2nd  of  July. 

Ignorance  of  its  contents  is  out  of  the  question.  Indeed,  at  his  re 
quest,  a  draft  of  the  bill  substantially  the  same  in  material  points 
and  identical  in  the  points  objected  to  by  the  proclamation,  had  been 
laid  before  him  for  his  consideration  in  the  winter  of  1862-3. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  provisions  of  the 
bill  took  the  President  by  surprise.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  reason 
to  believe  them  to  have  been  well  known  and  this  method  of  pre 
venting  the  bill  from  becoming  a  law  without  the  constitutional  re 
sponsibility  of  a  veto  had  been  resolved  on  long  before  the  bill 

[222] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

passed  the  Senate.  We  are  informed  by  gentlemen  entitled  to  entire 
confidence  that  before  the  22nd  of  June,  in  New  Orleans,  it  was 
stated  by  a  member  of  General  Banks'  Staff,  in  the  presence  of  other 
gentlemen  in  official  position,  that  Senator  Doolittle  had  written  a 
letter  to  the  department  that  the  House  Reconstruction  Bill  would 
be  staved  off  in  the  Senate  to  a  period  too  late  in  the  session  to  re 
quire  the  President  to  veto  it  in  order  to  defeat  it;  and  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  would  retain  the  bill,  if  necessary,  and  thereby  defeat  it. 

The  experience  of  Senator  Wade  in  his  various  efforts  to  get  the 
bill  considered  in  the  Senate  was  quite  in  accordance  with  this  plan, 
and  the  fate  of  the  bill  was  accurately  predicted  by  letters  received 
from  New  Orleans  before  it  had  passed  the  Senate. 

Had  the  proclamation  stopped  there  it  would  have  been  only  one 
other  defeat  of  the  will  of  the  people  by  the  Executive  perversion 
of  the  Constitution.  But  it  goes  further.  The  President  says :  "And, 
whereas,  the  said  bill  contains  among  other  things,  a  plan  for  re 
storing  the  states  in  rebellion  to  their  proper  political  relation  in 
the  Union,  which  plan  expressed  the  sense  of  Congress  on  that  sub 
ject,  and  which  plan  it  is  now  thought  fit  to  lay  before  the  people 
for  their  consideration." 

By  what  authority  of  the  Constitution?  In  what  form?  The  re 
sult  to  be  declared  by  whom?  With  what  effect  when  ascertained? 
Is  it  to  be  a  law  by  the  approval  of  the  people,  without  the  approval 
of  Congress,  at  the  will  of  the  President?  Will  the  President  on  his 
opinion  of  the  popular  approval  execute  it  as  a  law?  Or  is  this 
merely  a  device  to  avoid  the  serious  responsibility  of  defeating  a 
law  on  which  so  many  loyal  hearts  reposed  for  security? 

But  the  reasons  now  assigned  for  not  approving  the  bill  are  full 
of  ominous  significance.  The  President  proceeds  :  "Now,  therefore, 
I,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States,  do  proclaim,  de 
clare  and  make  known  that  while  I  am  (as  I  was  in  December  last, 
when  by  proclamation  I  proposed  a  plan  for  restoration)  unprepared 
by  a  formal  approval  of  this  bill  to  be  inflexibly  committed  to  any 
single  plan  of  restoration." 

That  is  to  say,  the  President  is  resolved  that  the  people  shall  not 
by  law  take  any  security  from  the  rebel  states  against  a  renewal  of 
the  rebellion,  before  restoring  their  power  to  govern  us.  His  wis 
dom  and  prudence  are  to  be  our  sufficient  guarantee  1  He  further 
says  :  "And  while  I  am  also  unprepared  to  declare  that  the  free-state 
constitutions  adopted  and  installed  in  Louisiana  and  Arkansas  shall 
be  set  aside  and  held  for  naught,  thereby  repelling  and  discouraging 
the  loyal  citizens  who  have  set  them  up  as  to  further  effort." 

That  is  to  say,  the  President  persists  in  recognizing  those  shadows 
of  governments  in  Arkansas  and  Louisiana  which  Congress  formally 
declared  should  not  be  recognized — whose  Representatives  and  Sena 
tors  were  recalled  by  formal  vote  of  both  Houses  of  Congress — 
which  it  was  declared  formally  should  have  no  electoral  vote  for 
President  and  Vice-President. 

They  are  mere  creatures  of  his  will.  They  are  mere  oligarchies 
imposed  on  the  people  by  military  orders  under  the  form  of  an  elec 
tion,  at  which  generals,  provost  marshals,  soldiers  and  camp  follow 
ers  were  the  chief  actors,  assisted  by  a  handful  of  resident  citizens, 
and  urged  on  to  premature  action  by  private  letters  from  the  Presi 
dent. 

In  neither  Louisiana  nor  Arkansas  before  General  Banks'  defeat 

[223] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

did  the  United  States  control  half  the  territory  or  half  the  popula 
tion.  In  Louisiana  General  Banks'  proclamation  frankly  declared 
"The  fundamental  law  of  the  state  is  martial  law." 

On  that  foundation  of  freedom  he  erected  what  the  President  calls 
'the  free  constitution  and  government  of  Louisiana."  But  of  this 
state,  whose  fundamental  law  was  martial  law,  only  sixteen  par 
ishes  out  of  forty-eight  parishes  were  held  by  the  United  States; 
and  in  five  of  the  sixteen  we  held  only  our  war  camps.  The  eleven 
parishes  we  substantially  held  had  233,185  inhabitants;  the  residue 
of  the  state  not  held  by  us,  575,617. 

At  the  farce  called  an  election,  the  officers  of  General  Banks  re 
turned  that  11,346  ballots  were  cast;  but  whether  by  any  lawful  au 
thority  or  by  whom,  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  no  legal 
assurance,  but  it  is  probable  that  4000  were  cast  by  soldiers  or  em 
ployes  of  the  United  States,  military  or  municipal,  but  none  accord 
ing  to  law,  state  or  national,  and  7000  represented  the  State  of 
Louisiana.  Such  is  the  free  constitution  and  government  of  Louisiana, 
and  it  is  like  that  of  Arkansas.  Nothing  but  the  failure  of  a  military 
expedition  deprived  us  of  a  like  one  in  the  swamps  of  Florida;  and 
before  the  Presidential  election,  like  ones  may  be  organized  in  every 
rebel  state  where  the  United  States  has  a  camp. 

The  President  by  preventing  this  bill  from  becoming  a  law,  holds 
the  electoral  votes  of  the  rebel  states  at  the  dictation  of  his  personal 
ambition.  If  those  votes  turn  the  balance  in  his  favor,  is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  his  competitor,  defeated  by  such  means,  will  acqui 
esce?  If  the  rebel  majority  assert  their  supremacy  in  those  states  and 
send  votes  which  elect  an  enemy  of  the  government  will  we  not 
repel  his  claims?  And  is  not  that  civil  war  for  the  presidency  inau 
gurated  by  the  votes  of  rebel  states? 

Seriously  impressed  with  these  dangers  Congress,  the  proper  con 
stitutional  authority,  formally  declared  that  there  are  no  state  gov 
ernments  in  the  rebel  states,  and  provided  for  their  erection  at  a 
proper  time,  and  both  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives 
rejected  the  Senators  and  Representatives  chosen  under  the  author 
ity  of  what  the  President  calls  the  free  constitution  and  government 
of  Arkansas.  The  President's  proclamation  "holds  for  naught"  this 
judgment  and  discards  the  authority  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
strides  headlong  towards  the  anarchy  his  proclamation  of  December 
8  inaugurated. 

If  electors  for  President  be  allowed  to  be  chosen  in  either  of  these 
states  a  sinister  light  will  be  cast  on  the  motives  which  induced  the 
President  to  "hold  for  naught"  the  will  of  Congress  rather  than  his 
government  in  Louisiana  and  Arkansas.  That  judgment  of  Congress 
which  the  President  defies  was  the  exercise  of  an  authority  exclu 
sively  vested  in  Congress  by  the  Constitution,  to  determine  what  is 
the  established  government  in  a  state,  and  in  its  own  nature  and  by 
the  highest  judicial  authority  binding  on  all  other  departments  of 
the  government.  The  Supreme  Court  has  formally  declared  that 
under  the  Fourth  Article  of  the  Constitution,  requiring  the 
United  States  to  guarantee  to  every  state  a  republican  form  of  gov 
ernment,  "it  rests  with  Congress  to  decide  what  is  the  established 
one  in  any  state,"  and  "when  the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  a 
state  are  admitted  into  the  councils  of  the  Union  the  authority  of 
the  government  under  which  they  are  appointed,  as  well  as  its  re 
publican  character,  is  recognized  by  the  proper  constitutional  author- 

[224] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

ity  and  its  decision  is  binding  on  every  other  department  of  the  gov 
ernment  and  could  not  be  questioned  in  a  judicial  tribunal.  It  is 
true  that  the  contest  in  this  case  did  not  last  long  enough  to  bring 
the  matter  to  this  issue;  and  as  no  Senators  and  Representatives 
were  elected  under  the  authority  of  the  governments  of  which  Mr. 
Dorr  was  the  head,  Congress  was  not  called  upon  to  decide  the  con 
troversy.  Yet  the  right  to  decide  it  is  placed  there." 

Even  the  President's  proclamation  of  the  8th  of  December,  for 
mally  declares  that  "whether  members  sent  to  Congress  from  any 
state  shall  be  admitted  to  seats  constitutionally  rests  exclusively 
with  the  respective  Houses,  and  not  to  any  extent  with  the  Execu 
tive."  And  that  is  none  the  less  true  because  wholly  inconsistent 
with  the  President's  assumption  in  the  proclamation  of  the  right  to 
institute  and  recognize  state  governments  in  the  rebel  states,  not  be 
cause  that  the  President  is  unable  to  perceive  that  his  recognition  is 
a  nullity  if  it  be  not  conclusive  on  Congress.  Under  the  Constitution, 
the  right  to  Senators  and  Representatives  is  inseparable  from  a  state 
government.  If  there  be  a  state  government,  the  right  is  absolute. 
If  there  be  no  state  government  there  can  be  no  Senators  or  Repre 
sentatives  chosen.  The  two  Houses  of  Congress  are  expressly  de 
clared  to  be  the  sole  judges  of  its  own  members.  When,  therefore, 
Senators  and  Representatives  are  admitted,  the  state  government 
under  whose  authority  they  are  chosen  is  conclusively  established; 
when  they  are  rejected  its  existence  is  as  conclusively  denied;  and 
to  this  judgment  the  President  is  bound  to  submit. 

The  President  proceeds  to  express  his  unwillingness  "to  declare  a 
constitutional  competency  in  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
states"  as  another  reason  for  not  signing  the  bill.  But  the  bill  no 
where  proposes  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  states.  The  bill  did  provide 
that  all  slaves  in  the  rebel  states  should  be  manumitted.  But  as  the 
President  had  already  signed  three  bills  manumitting  several  classes 
of  slaves  in  the  rebel  states,  it  is  not  conceived  possible  that  he  en 
tertained  any  scruples  touching  that  provision  of  the  bill  respecting 
which  he  is  silent.  He  had  already  himself  assumed  the  right  by  proc 
lamation  to  free  much  the  larger  number  of  slaves  in  the  rebel 
states  under  authority  given  him  by  Congress  to  use  the  military 
power  to  suppress  the  rebellion;  and  it  is  quite  unconceivable  that 
the  President  should  think  Congress  could  vest  in  him  a  discretion 
it  could  not  itself  exercise.  It  is  the  more  unintelligible  from  the 
fact  that,  except  in  respect  to  a  small  part  of  Virginia  and  Louisiana, 
the  bill  covered  only  what  the  proclamation  covered — added  a  con 
gressional  title  and  judicial  remedies  by  law  to  the  disputed  title 
under  the  proclamation — to  perfect  the  work  the  President  professed 
to  be  so  anxious  to  accomplish. 

Slavery  as  an  institution  can  be  abolished  by  a  change  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  or  of  the  law  of  the  states;  and  this 
is  the  principle  of  the  bill.  It  required  the  new  constitutions  of  the 
states  to  provide  for  that  prohibition;  and  the  President,  in  the  face 
of  his  own  proclamation,  does  not  venture  to  object  to  insisting  on 
that  condition  ;  nor  will  the  country  tolerate  its  abandonment,  yet 
he  defeated  the  only  provision  imposing  it.  But  when  he  describes 
himself,  in  spite  of  this  great  blow  at  emancipation,  as  "sincerely 
hoping  and  expecting  that  a  constitutional  amendment  abolishing 
slavery  throughout  the  nation  may  be  adopted,"  we  curiously  inquire 
on  what  his  expectation  rests,  after  the  vote  of  the  House  of  Rep- 

[225] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

resentatives  at  the  recent  session,  and  in  the  face  of  the  political 
complexion  of  more  than  enough  of  the  states  to  prevent  the  possi 
bility  of  its  adoption  within  any  reasonable  time ;  and  why  he  did 
not  indulge  his  sincere  hopes  with  so  large  an  installment  of  the 
blessing  as  his  approval  of  the  bill  that  would  have  secured  it? 

After  this  assignment  of  his  reason  for  preventing  the  bill  from 
becoming  a  law,  the  President  proceeds  to  declare  his  purpose  to 
execute  it  as  a  law  by  his  plenary  dictatorial  power.  He  says : 
"Nevertheless,  I  am  fully  satisfied  with  the  system  for  restora 
tion  contained  in  the  bill  as  one  very  proper  for  the  loyal 
people  of  any  state  choosing  to  adopt  it;  and  that  I  am,  and  at  all 
times  shall  be,  prepared  to  give  Executive  aid  and  assistance  to  any 
such  people,  as  soon  as  military  resistance  to  the  United  States  shall 
have  been  suppressed  in  any  such  state,  and  the  people  thereof  shall 
have  sufficiently  returned  to  their  obedience  to  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States — in  which  case  military  governors  will  be 
appointed,  with  directions  to  proceed  according  to  the  bill." 

A  more  studied  outrage  on  the  legislative  authority  of  the  people 
lias  never  been  perpetrated.  Congress  passed  a  bill;  the  President 
refused  to  approve  it,  and  then  by  proclamation  puts  as  much  of  it 
in  force  as  he  sees  fit,  and  proposes  to  execute  those  parts  by  officers 
unknown  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  not  subject  to  the 
•confirmation  of  the  Senate.  The  bill  directed  the  appointment  of 
provisional  governors  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate.  The  President,  after  defeating  the  law,  proposes  to  appoint, 
without  authority  of  law  and  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  military  governors  for  the  rebel  states!  He  has  already 
exercised  his  dictatorial  usurpation  in  Louisiana,  and  defeated  the 
bill  to  prevent  its  limitation. 

Henceforth  we  must  regard  the  following  precedent  as  the  presi 
dential  law  of  the  rebel  states : 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  March  15,  1864. 
His  Excellency,  Michael  Hahn,  Governor  of  Louisiana  : 

Until  further  orders  you  are  hereby  invested  with  the  powers 
exercised  hitherto  by  the  military  governor  of  Louisiana. 

Yours, 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

This  Michael  Hahn  is  no  officer  of  the  United  States;  the  Presi 
dent,  without  law,  without  the  advice  or  consent  of  the  Senate,  by 
a  private  note  not  even  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  of  State, 
makes  him  dictator  of  Louisiana! 

The  bill  provided  for  the  civil  administration  of  the  laws  of  the 
state,  but  it  should  be  in  a  fit  temper  to  govern  itself,  repealing  all 
laws  recognizing  slavery,  and  making  all  men  equal  before  the  law. 
These  beneficent  provisions  the  President  has  annulled.  People  will 
die  and  marry  and  transfer  property,  and  buy  and  sell;  and  to  these 
acts  of  civil  life  courts  and  officers  of  the  law  are  necessary.  Con 
gress  legislated  for  these  necessary  things  and  the  President  de 
prives  them  of  the  protection  of  the  law!  Whatever  is  done  will  be 
at  his  will  and  pleasure  by  persons  responsible  to  no  law,  and  more 
interested  to  secure  the  interests  and  execute  the  will  of  the  Presi 
dent  than  of  the  people;  and  the  will  of  Congress  is  to  be  "held  for 
naught"  unless  the  loyal  people  of  rebel  states  should  prefer  the 
stringent  bill  to  the  easy  proclamation,  still  the  registration  will  be 

[226] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

made  under  no  legal  sanction;  it  will  give  no  assurance  that  a  ma 
jority  of  the  people  of  the  states  have  taken  the  oath;  if  adminis 
tered,  it  will  be  without  legal  authority  and  void,  and  no  indictment 
will  lie  for  false  swearing  at  the  election,  or  for  admitting  bad  or 
rejecting  good  votes;  it  will  be  the  farce  of  Louisiana  and  Arkansas 
acted  over  again,  under  the  forms  of  this  bill  but  without  authority 
of  law.  But  when  we  come  to  the  guarantees  of  the  future  peace 
which  Congress  meant  to  enact,  the  form  as  well  as  the  substance  of 
the  bill  must  yield  to  the  President's  will  that  none  should  be  im 
posed. 

It  was  the  solemn  resolve  of  Congress  to  protect  the  loyal  men  of 
the  nation  against  three  great  dangers:  (1)  the  return  to  power  of 
the  guilty  leaders  of  the  rebellion;  (2)  the  continuance  of  slavery; 
and  (3)  the  burden  of  the  rebel  debt.  Congress  required  assent  to 
these  provisions  by  the  convention  of  the  state;  and  if  it  refused,  it 
was  to  be  dissolved.  The  President  "holds  for  naught"  that  resolve 
of  Congress  because  he  is  "unwilling  to  be  inflexibly  committed  to 
any  one  plan  of  restoration,"  and  the  people  of  the  United  States 
are  not  to  be  allowed  to  protect  themselves  unless  their  enemies 
agree  to  it. 

The  order  to  proceed  according  to  the  bill  is  therefore  merely  at 
the  will  of  the  rebel  states ;  and  they  have  the  option  to  reject  it, 
accept  the  proclamation  of  the  8th  of  December  last,  and  demand 
the  President's  recognition!  Mark  the  contrast!  The  bill  required  a 
majority,  the  proclamation  is  satisfied  with  one-tenth;  the  bill  re 
quired  one  oath,  the  proclamation  requires  another;  the  bill  ascer 
tains  voters  by  registering,  the  proclamation  by  guess ;  the  bill 
exacts  adherence  to  existing  territorial  limits,  the  proclamation  ad 
mits  of  others  ;  the  bill  governs  the  rebel  states  by  law,  the  procla 
mation  commits  them  to  the  lawless  discretion  of  military  governors 
and  provost  marshals ;  the  bill  forbids  electors  for  President,  the 
proclamation  and  defeat  of  the  bill  threaten  us  with  civil  war  for 
the  admission  or  the  exclusion  of  such  votes;  the  bill  exacts  the  ex 
clusion  of  dangerous  enemies  from  power  and  the  relief  of  the 
nation  from  the  rebel  debt,  and  the  prohibition  of  slavery  forever,  so 
that  the  supression  of  the  rebellion  will  double  our  resources  to  bear 
or  pay  the  national  debt,  free  the  masses  from  the  old  domination 
of  rebel  leaders,  and  eradicate  the  cause  of  the  war;  the  proclama 
tion  secures  neither  of  these  guarantees.  It  is  silent  respecting  the 
rebel  debt  and  the  exclusion  of  rebel  leaders;  leaving  slavery  exactly 
where  it  was  by  law  at  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion,  and  adds  no 
guarantee  even  of  the  freedom  of  the  slaves  he  undertook  to  manu 
mit. 

It  is  summed  up  in  an  illegal  oath,  without  sanction  and  therefore 
void.  The  oath  is  to  support  all  proclamations  of  the  President  dur 
ing  the  rebellion  having  reference  to  the  slaves.  Any  government  is 
to  be  accepted  at  the  hands  of  one-tenth  of  the  people  not  contra 
vening  that  oath.  Now  that  oath  neither  secures  the  abolition  of 
slavery  nor  adds  any  security  to  the  freedom  of  the  slaves  the  Presi 
dent  has  declared  free.  It  does  not  secure  the  abolition  of  slavery; 
for  the  proclamation  of  freedom  merely  professes  to  free  certain 
slaves  while  it  recognizes  the  institution.  Every  constitution  of  the 
rebel  states  at  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion  may  be  adopted  without 
the  change  of  a  letter,  for  none  of  them  contravenes  the  proclama 
tion;  none  of  them  established  slavery. 

[227] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

It  adds  no  security  to  the  freedom  of  the  slaves  ;  for  their  title  is 
the  proclamation  of  freedom.  If  it  be  unconstitutional,  an  oath  to 
support  it  is  void.  Whether  constitutional  or  not,  the  oath  is  with 
out  authority  of  law  and  therefore  void.  If  it  be  void  and  observed 
it  exacts  no  enactment  by  the  state  either  in  law  or  constitution,  to 
add  a  state  guarantee  to  the  proclamation  title;  and  the  right  of  the 
slaves  to  freedom  is  an  open  question  before  the  state  courts  on  the 
relative  authority  of  the  state  law  and  the  proclamation.  If  the  oath 
binds  the  one-tenth  who  take  it,  it  is  not  exacted  of  the  other  nine- 
tenths  who  succeed  to  the  control  of  the  government;  so  that  it  is 
annulled  instantly  by  the  act  of  recognition. 

What  the  state  courts  would  say  of  the  proclamation  who  can 
doubt?  But  the  master  would  not  go  to  court — he  would  simply  seize 
his  slaves. 

What  the  Supreme  Court  would  say,  who  can  tell?  When  and  how 
is  the  question  to  get  there?  No  habeas  corpus  lies  for  him  in  the 
United  States  Court;  and  the  President  defeats  this  bill  for  the  ex 
tension  of  the  writ  to  his  case. 

Such  are  fruits  of  this  rash  and  fatal  act  of  the  President — a  blow 
at  the  friends  of  his  Administration,  at  the  rights  of  humanity,  and 
at  the  principles  of  republican  government. 

The  President  has  greatly  presumed  on  the  forbearance  which  the 
supporters  of  his  Administration  have  so  long  practiced,  in  view  of 
the  arduous  conflict  in  which  we  are  engaged,  and  the  reckless  feroc 
ity  of  our  political  opponents.  But  he  must  understand  that  our  sup 
port  is  of  a  cause  and  not  of  a  man  ;  that  the  authority  of  Congress 
is  paramount  and  must  be  respected;  that  the  whole  body  of  the 
Union  men  in  Congress  will  not  submit  to  be  impeached  by  him  of 
rash  and  unconstitutional  legislation;  and  if  he  wishes  our  support 
he  must  confine  himself  to  his  Executive  duties — to  obey  and  exe 
cute,  not  make  the  laws — to  suppress  by  arms  armed  rebellion,  and 
leave  political  recognition  to  Congress. 

If  the  supporters  of  the  government  fail  to  insist  on  this  they  be 
come  responsible  for  the  usurpations  which  they  fail  to  rebuke,  and 
are  justly  liable  to  the  indignation  of  the  people  whose  rights  and 
security,  committed  to  their  keeping,  they  sacrifice. 

Let  them  consider  the  remedy  of  these  usurpations,  and,  having 
found  it,  fearlessly  execute  it. 

B.  F.  WADE, 

Chairman,  Senate  Committee. 

H.  WINTER  DAVIS, 

Chairman,  Committee  of  House 
of  Representatives  on  the  Re 
bellious  States. 


[228] 


APPENDIX  B 


INTERESTING  DECISIONS  BY   THE  UNITED   STATES 
SUPREME  COURT— CIVIL  RIGHTS  AND  OTHERS 

(The  Language  is  from  Syllabi  of  the  Cases.) 

The  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  relative  to 
fugitives  from  labor,  manifestly  contemplated  a  positive  and  un 
qualified  right  on  the  part  of  the  owners  of  slaves,  which  no  state 
law  or  regulation  can  in  any  way  qualify,  regulate,  control  or  re 
strain ;  and  any  law  which  interrupts,  limits,  delays  or  obstructs  the 
right  of  the  owner  to  the  irmnediate  command  of  his  service  or  labor, 
operates  pro  tanto  to  discharge  the  slave  therefrom.  The  question 
can  never  be  how  much  he  is  discharged  from,  but  whether  he  is 
discharged  from  any  at  all  by  the  natural  and  necessary  operation 
of  the  state  laws  or  state  regulations.  The  question  is  not  of  quan 
tity  or  degree,  but  of  withholding  or  controlling  the  incidents  of  a 
positive  right. 

The  owner  of  a  slave  has  the  same  right  to  take  or  seize  him  in  a 
state  to  which  he  has  fled  that  he  had  in  the  state  from  which  he 
escaped.  The  owner  of  a  slave  has  the  right  to  seize  and  take  him 
wherever  found;  wherever  he  can  without  a  breach  of  the  peace  or 
illegal  violence. 

The  power  of  legislation  in  relation  to  fugitives  from  labor  is  ex 
clusively  in  the  national  legislature  (Sturgis  vs.  Crowinshield,  4  Wh. 
122). 

The  right  to  seize  a  fugitive  slave  and  the  duty  to  deliver  him  up 
in  whatever  state  he  is  found  is,  under  the  Constitution,  recognized 
as  a  positive  right  and  duty  pervading  the  whole  Union  with  equal 
and  supreme  force  uncontrolled  and  uncontrollable  by  state  sover 
eignty  or  state  legislation. 

The  right  and  duty  are  co-extensive  and  uniform  in  remedy  and 
operation  throughout  the  whole  Union.  The  owner  has  the  same  se 
curity,  the  same  remedial  justice,  and  the  same  exemption  from  state 
regulation  and  control  through  however  many  states  he  may  pass  in 
transition  to  his  domicile.  The  act  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature 
is  unconstitutional  and  void. 

(1842)  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania,  16  Peters  p.  500,  Opinion  by 
Story,  J. 

Note — Compare  this  argument  and  decision  with  later  Supreme  Court  decisions 
as  to  the  respective  powers  of  the  national  and  state  legislatures— the  Civil 
Rights  cases  for  instance.  The  decision  in  the  above  case  by  Judge  Story 
arose  as  follows:  In  1826  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  passed  an  Act  as 
follows:  "That  if  any  person  shall  by  force  or  violence,  take,  carry  away  or 
cause  to  be  taken  or  carried  away,  or  shall  by  fraud  or  false  pretense  seduce 
or  cause  to  be  seduced  any  Negro  or  mulatto  from  any  part  or  parts  of  this 
Commonwealth,  with  the  design  or  intention  of  selling  and  disposing  of  or 
causing  to  be  sold  and  disposed  of  or  keeping  and  detaining  or  causing  to  be 
kept  and  detained,  any  Negro,  etc.,  as  a  slave  for  life  or  for  any  term  what 
ever,  every  such  person  or  persons,  his  or  their  aiders  or  abettors,  shall  on 
conviction  thereof,  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  felony  and  shall  forfeit  and  pay  at 
the  discretion  <af  the  Court  a  sum  not  less  than  five  hundred  dollars  nor  more 
than  one  thousand  dollars — one- half  to  be  paid  to  the  persons  who  shall 

[229] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

prosecute  the  same  and  the  other  half  to  the  Commonwealth;  moreover  shall 
e  sentenced  to  undergo  a  servitude  for  any  term  of  years  not  less  than  seven 
nor  more  than  twenty-one  years:  Provided  that  fugitive  slaves  shall  be  re 
turned  on  petition  to  any  judge  or  justice  of  the  peace,  in  writing  by  the  party 
claiming,  setting  up  the  fact  of  his  ownership  and  the  escape.  The  fugitive  to 
be  arrested  and  brought  before  the  judge  or  justice  of  the  peace.  When  the 
clairri  is  presented  by  an  agent  or  attorney,  the  same  to  be  accompanied  by 
an  affidavit  of  the  owner  which  affidavit  is  to  be  certified  before  some  person 
authorized  to  administer  oaths  in  the  county  where  said  owner  resides  The 
judge  or  justice  of  the  peace  to  certify  the  record  to  the  Court  of  Quarter 
Sessions  within  ten  days,  when  the  case  will  be  duly  tried.  Provided,  that  no 
one  claimed  as  a  slave  shall  be  removed  from  the  state  except  in  accordance 
with  this  Act  The  people  of  Pennsylvania  had  been  greatly  annoyed  and 
oiten  distressed  by  slave-holders  who  were  in  the  habit  of  coming  into  the 
state  in  quest  of  their  alleged  slaves.  They  or  hired  thugs  would  at  times 
seize  any  colored  person  they  could  lay  their  hands  on,  and  without  any  one 
to  question  them,  would  take  them  and  sell  them  to  slave  traders  that  in 
fested  the  borders  of  Maryland.  To  stop  this  disgraceful  practice,  the  state 
passed  this  law  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  those  claiming  persons  as  their 
slaves  to  at  least  prove  their  claims  before  a  competent  court.  But  the  Su 
preme  Court  said  that  this  law  was  unconstitutional.  See  Civil  Rights  Case  in- 


A  free  Negro  whose  ancestors  were  brought  to  this  country  and 
sold  as  a  slave  is  not  a  "citizen"  within  the  meaning  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  When  the  Constitution  was  adopted 
they  were  not  regarded  in  any  of  the  states  as  members  of  the  com 
munity  which  constituted  the  state  and  were  not  numbered  among 
"the  people  or  citizens,"  consequently  the  special  rights  and  im 
munities  guaranteed  to  citizens,  do  not  apply  to  them.  And  not  being 
citizens  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  are  not  entitled  to 
sue  in  that  character  in  a  court  of  the  United  States.  Since  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  no  state  can  make  any  person  a  citi 
zen  of  the  United  States  nor  entitle  them  (him)  to  the  rights  and 
immunities  secured  to  citizens. 

(1857)    (Dred)   Scott  vs.   Sanford,  19  Howard,  395.    Opinion 
by  Taney,  C.  J. ;  Curtis  and  McLean,  JJ.,  dissenting. 

Note— This  is  the  famous  or  infamous  Dred  Scott  Decision.  The  facts  of  the 
case  were  as  follows:  Dr.  Sanford  moved  to  Missouri,  taking  with  him  among 
other  things,  Dred  Scott,  a  slave.  Under  the  compromise  of  1820,  slavery  was 
excluded  from  a  certain  part  of  Missouri;  on  reaching  this  territory  Scott  pe 
titioned  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  from  the  United  States  Court  to  deter 
mine  whether  or  not  he  might  rightfully  claim  his  freedom.  The  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  is  a  common  law  writ  and  is  available  to  all  citizens  under  the  pro 
visions  of  the  United  States  Constitution.  The  whole  case,  therefore,  turned 
on  the  point  as  to  whether  or  not  Scott  was  a  "citizen;"  if  he  was,  he  had  a 
right  to  sue  out  the  writ  and  then  the  question  might  be  raised  as  to  the 
legality  of  his  detention;  if  he  was  not  a  "citizen,"  then  the  legality  of  his 
detention  need  not  be  considered.  The  learned  court  argued  that  the  term 
citizen  implied  the  right  of  one  to  enjoy  all  the  civil  and  political  advantages 
of  the  country  of  which  he  may  be  a  citizen.  It  was  then  asserted  that  Ne 
groes  were  nowhere  permitted  to  enjoy  any  advantages  of  citizenship  as  a 
matter  of  legal  right,  in  fact,  had  no.  rights  of  any  kind  that  a  white  man  was 
bound  to  respect. 

The  dissenting  justices  showed  that  in  parts  of  the  country  Negroes  had 
been  in  the  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  the  highest  privileges  of  citizenship 
since  the  time  of  the  Revolution.  This  decision,  however,  raised  a  great  ques 
tion  and  one  whose  final  determination  by  the  adoption  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  in  which  citizenship  is  defined,  has  been  of  greatest  benefit  to 
the  country  especially  in  view  of  our  heterogenous  population. 


The  main  purpose  of  the  last  three  (Thirteenth,  Fourteenth  and 
Fifteenth)  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  was  the  freedom  of  the 
African  race,  the  security  and  perpetuation  of  that  freedom,  and 

[230] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

their  protection  from  the  oppression  of  the  white  man  who  had  for 
merly  held  them  in  slavery.  In  giving  construction  to  these  articles 
it  is  necessary  to  keep  this  main  purpose  steadily  in  view.  The  pur 
pose  of  the  first  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  primarily 
intended  to  confer  citizenship  upon  the  Negro  race;  secondly  to  give 
definitions  of  citizenship  of  the  United  States  and  citizenship  of  the 
states,  and  recognizes  and  distinguishes  between  citizenship  of  the 
United  States  and  citizenship  of  the  states.  The  latter  embraces 
generally  those  fundamental  civil  rights  for  the  security  and  estab 
lishment  of  which  organized  society  is  instituted,  and  they  remain, 
with  certain  exceptions  mentioned  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  under 
the  care  of  state  governments.  The  privileges  and  immunities  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States  are  those  which  arise  out  of  the  nature 
and  character  of  the  national  government,  the  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution,  or  its  laws  and  treaties  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  and  it 
is  these  which  are  placed  under  the  protection  of  Congress  by  this 
clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  The  clause  which  forbids  a 
state  to  deny  any  persons  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws  was 
clearly  intended  to  prevent  the  hostile  discrimination  against  the 
Negroes  so  familiar  in  states  where  they  had  been  held  as  slaves,  and 
for  this  purpose,  the  clause  confers  ample  power  upon  Congress  to 
secure  their  rights  and  equality  before  the  law. 

(1873)  Opinion  by  Miller,  J.     The  Slaughter  House  Cases, 
16  Wallace  36. 

Note — The  learned  court  said  at  page  78,  that  "it  was  not  the  purpose  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  to  transfer  to  Congress  the  protection  of  the  civil 
rights,  etc.,  hitherto  under  the  protection  of  the  states.  The  privileges,  etc., 
referred  to  in  the  amendment  being  such  as  belong  to  the  states,  they  are 
under  state  control." 

The  case  has  no  immediate  connection  with  the  Negro  question  at  all,  hay 
ing  been  brought  to  determine  whether  or  not  a  state  (Louisiana)  might,  in 
view  of  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments,  compel  the  citizens  of 
a  community  (New  Orleans)  to  patronize  the  establishment  of  a  slaughter 
house  company  that  had  been  given  a  monopoly  of  the  business  of  slaughter 
ing  animals  for  the  market.  The  plaintiff  undertook  to  show  that  such  a 
regulation  was  unconstitutional,  being  in  violation  of  th«  amendments  named. 
The  court  held  that  it  was  not,  and  that  the  state  might  properly  enforce  the 
law. 

Bradley,    C.    J.,    Swayne    and    Fields,   JJ.,  dissented. 


Words  of  the  charter  of  a  railroad  company  granted  by  Act  of 
Congress,  to  the  effect  that  no  person  shall  be  excluded  from  cars  on 
account  of  race,  color,  etc.  Held:  That  this  meant  that  persons  of 
color  should  travel  in  the  same  cars  that  white  persons  used,  and 
along  with  them  in  such  cars;  and  that  the  Act  was  not  satisfied  by 
the  company  providing  cars  assigned  exclusively  to  colored  people 
though  as  good  as  those  assigned  exclusively  to  white  people,  and 
should  be  the  very  cars  that  were  at  times  assigned  exclusively  to 
white  people. 

(1873)  R.  R.  Co.   vs.   Brown,    17   Wallace   445.     Opinion  by 
Davis,  J. 


The  adoption  of  the   Fifteenth  Amendment  rendered   inoperative 

[231] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

a  provision  in  the  existing  constitution  of  a  state  whereby  the  right 
of  suffrage  was  limited  to  the  white  race.  The  presumption  should 
be  indulged  in  the  first  instance  that  a  state  recognizes  as  binding 
on  all  her  citizens  and  in  every  department  of  her  government,  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  from  the  time 
of  its  adoption,  and  her  duty  to  enforce  it  within  her  limits  without 
reference  to  any  inconsistent  provision  in  her  own  constitution  or 
statutes. 

(1880)  Neal  vs.  Delaware,  103  U.  S.  370. 

Note — In  connection  with  the  Neal  case,  the  Supreme  Court  incidentally  con 
strued  the  following  section  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  March  1,  1875,  18  Stat. 
at  Large,  Pt.  3,  p.  335:  "No  citizen  possessing  otherwise  qualifications  shall 
be  disqualified  from  service  as  grand  or  petit  jurors  in  any  court  of  the  United 
States  or  of  any  state  on  account  of  color,  race,"  etc. 

Neal  was  a  Negro  charged  with  a  felony  in  the  State  of  Delaware,  and  pe 
titioned  for  the  removal  of  his  case  to  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  because 
Negroes  were  excluded  from  service  as  jurors  in  the  state  courts.  The  Su 
preme  Court  denied. the  prayer  on  the  ground  that  the  state  had  passed  no 
law  denying  to  Negroes  the  right  to  serve  as  jurors.  "But  the  exclusion  of 
persons  from  service  as  jurors  because  of  race,  etc.,  if  done  without  authority 
derived  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  a  violation  of  the  per 
son's  rights  under  the  Constitution." 

The  other  statute  involved  in  this  case  is  as  follows:  "When  in  any  civil 
suit  or  criminal  prosecution  commenced  in  any  state  court  for  any  cause  what 
ever,  against  any  person  who  is  denied  or  can  not  enforce  in  the  judicial 
tribunal  of  the  state  or  in  the  part  of  the  state  where  such  prosecution  is 
pending,  any  right  secured  to  him  by  any  law  providing  for  the  equal  civil 
rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  such  suit  or  prosecution  may  be, 
upon  petition  of  such  defendant  filed  in  the  said  state  court  at  any  time  be 
fore  the  trial  or  final  hearing  of  the  cause,  stating  the  facts  and  verified  by 
oath,  removed  for  trial  to  the  next  Circuit  Court  to  be  held  in  the  district 
where  it  is  pending." 

Neal  based  his  case  in  the  Supreme  Court  on  those  two  statutes  or  laws 
passed  by  Congress,  but  the  court  declined  to  sustain  the  contention. 


The  Fourteenth  Amendment  is  one  of  a  series  of  constitutional 
amendments  having  a  common  purpose  of  securing  to  a  recently 
emancipated  race  which  has  been  held  in  slavery  through  many 
generations,  all  of  the  civil  rights  that  the  superior  race  enjoy,  and 
to  give  to  it  the  protection  of  the  general  government  in  the  enjoy 
ment  of  such  rights  wherever  they  should  be  denied  by  the  states. 
The  amendment  not  only  gave  citizenship  to  persons  of  color,  but 
denied  to  any  state  the  power  to  withhold  from  them  the  equal  pro 
tection  of  the  laws  and  invested  Congress  with  the  power  to  enforce 
its  provisions  by  appropriate  legislation.  The  amendment  confers 
the  positive  right  of  exemption  from  unfriendly  legislation  against 
them  as  colored;  exemption  from  discriminations  imposed  by  public 
authority  which  imply  legal  inferiority  in  civil  society,  lessen  the 
security  of  their  rights  and  are  steps  towards  reducing  them  to  the 
condition  of  a  subject  race.  Any  statute  that  denies  to  colored  men 
the  right  to  serve  as  jurors  denies  to  them  the  equal  protection  of 
the  laws  (and  is  unconstitutional).  The  very  idea  of  a  jury  is  that 
of  a  body  of  men  composed  of  the  peers  or  equals  of  the  person 
whose  rights  it  is  selected  to  determine.  And  where  the  statutes  of 
a  state  permit  (juries  of  white  men)  to  be  chosen  indiscriminately 
for  trial  of  the  accused  of  their  race  and  at  the  same  time  permit  or 

[232] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

require  such  discrimination  against  colored  men,  the  latter  are  not 
equally  protected  by  the  laws  with  the  former. 

(1879)  Strauder  vs.  West  Va.,  100  U.  S.  303. 

Though  a  mixed  jury  in  a  particular  case  is  not  essential  to  the 
equal  protection  of  the  laws,  colored  men  are  entitled  to  the  right 
not  to  be  excluded  because  of  their  color,  etc. 
(1879)  Va.  vs.  Rivers,  100  U.  S.  315. 

The  inhibition  contained  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  means 
that  no  agency  of  the  state  or  of  the  officers  or  agents  by  whom  her 
powers  are  exerted  shall  deny  to  any  person  within  her  jurisdiction 
the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  Whoever  by  virtue  of  his  public 
position  under  the  state  government  deprives  another  of  his  life, 
liberty  or  property  without,  due  process  of  law,  violates  this  inhibi 
tion  and,  as  he  acts  in  the  name  of  the  state  and  for  the  state  and 
is  clothed  with  her  power,  his  act  is  her  act.  Otherwise  the  inhibi 
tion  is  meaningless.  Congress  is  invested  with  power  to  enforce  by 
appropriate  legislation  this  provision,  and  such  legislation  must  act 
not  on  an  abstract  thing  denominated  a  state,  but  upon  persons  who 
are  its  agents  in  the  denial  of  the  rights  intended  to  be  secured. 
(1879)  Ex  parte  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  339. 

The  government  of  states  and  of  the  United  States  are  distinct, 
each  having  its  own  citizens  who  owe  it  allegiance  and  whose  rights 
within  its  jurisdiction  it  must  protect  *  *  *  *  and  rights  of  citi 
zens  of  one  may  be  different  from  those  of  the  other.  The  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  can  not  grant  or  secure  to  its  citizens 
rights  or  privileges  which  are  not  expressly  or  by  implication,  placed 
under  its  jurisdiction.  All  that  can  not  be  so  granted  or  secured  are 
left  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  states.  Sovereignty  for  the 
protection  of  the  life  and  personal  liberty  within  the  respective 
states  rests  alone  with  the  states.  The  Fourteenth  Amendment  pro 
hibits  a  state  from  depriving  any  person  of  life,  liberty  or  property 
without  due  process  of  law,  and  from  denying  to  any  person  within 
its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws,  but  it  adds  nothing 
to  the  rights  of  one  citizen  as  against  the  other.  It  simply  furnishes 
an  additional  guaranty  against  any  encroachments  by  the  state  upon 
the  fundamental  rights  which  belong  to  every  citizen  as  a  member 
of  society.  The  duty  of  protecting  all  of  its  citizens  in  the  enjoyment 
of  equal  rights  was  originally  assumed  by  the  states  and  still  re 
mains  there.  The  only  obligation  resting  upon  the  United  States  is 
to  see  that  the  states  do  not  deny  the  right.  This  the  amendment 
guarantees,  but  no  more.  The  power  of  the  national  government  is 
limited  to  the  enforcement  of  this  guaranty.  The  right  to  vote  in 
the  states  comes  from  the  states;  but  the  right  of  exemption  from 
prohibited  discrimination  comes  from  the  United  States. 

(1875)  U.  S.  vs.  Cruikshank,  et  al.  92  U.  S.  542    Opinion  by 
Waite,   C.  J. 

Note— Cruikshank  alleged  that  he  had  been  hindered  and  prevented  from 
YOting  by  reason  of  an  unlawful  conspiracy  and  brought  his  action  under  the 
following  statute,  being  Section  6  of  the  Act  of  May  31,  1870: 

"That  if  any  two  or  more  persons  shall  bind  together,  or  go  in  disguise  upon 

[233] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

the  public  highway,  or  upon  the  premises  of  another  with  intent  to  violate 
the  provisions  of  this  Act,  or  injure,  oppress,  threaten  or  intimidate  any  citi 
zen  with  intent  to  prevent  or  hinder  his  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  any 
right  or  privilege  granted  or  secured  to  him  by  the  Constitution  or  laws  of 
the  United  States,  or  because  of  his  having  exercised  the  same,  such  persons 
shall  be  held  to  be  guilty  of  a  felony  and  upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be 
fined  or  imprisoned  or  both  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  the  fine  not  to  ex 
ceed  $500,  and  the  imprisonment  not  to  exceed  ten  years;  and  shall  more 
over  be  hereafter  ineligible  to  and  disabled  from  holding  any  office  of  trust, 
etc.,  under  the  United  States." 

The  court  held  that  the  national  government  could  afford  the  plaintiff  no 
relief  under  the  circumstances  above  mentioned  notwithstanding  the  statute 
quoted;  that  such  matters  rested  with  the  states  exclusively. 


The  Fifteenth  Amendment  does  not  confer  the  rights  of  suffrage,, 
but  invests  citizens  of  the  United  States  with  the  right  of  exemption 
from  discrimination  in  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  on  ac 
count  of  race,  color,  etc.,  and  empowers  Congress  to  enforce  the 
right  by  appropriate  legislation.  The  power  of  Congress  to  legis 
late  in  matters  of  voting  in  the  states  rests  upon  this  amendment 
only  and  can  be  exercised  by  providing  for  punishment  only  when 
the  wrongful  refusal  to  receive  the  vote  of  a  qualified  voter  is  on 
account  of  race,  color  or  pervious  condition  of  servitude.  The  Third 
and  Fourth  Sections  of  the  Act  of  May  31,  1870,  are,  therefore,  un 
constitutional,  being  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 

(1875)  U.  S.  vs.  Reese,  92  U.  S.  214.    Hunt,  J.,  dissented. 

Note — Sections  3  and  4  of  the  Act  referred  to  were  in  the  following  language: 
"That  whenever  by  the  authority  of  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  or 
territory,  any  act  shall  be  required  to  be  done  by  any  citizen  as  a  pre 
requisite  to  qualify  or  enable  him  to  vote,  the  offer  of  any  such  citizen  to 
perform  the  act  required  as  aforesaid  shall,  if  he  fail  to  carry  it  into  execu 
tion  by  reason  of  the  wrongful  act  or  omission  of  the  officer  or  person  charged 
with  the  duty  of  receiving  or  permitting  such  performance  or  offer  to  perform 
or  acting  thereon,  be  deemed  and  held  to  be  performance  in  law  of  such  act; 
and  the  person  so  offering  and  being  otherwise  qualified,  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote  *  *  *  *  as  though  such  act  were  performed.  And  any  judge,  inspect 
or  or  other  officer  of  election,  whose  duty  it  is  or  shall  be,  to  receive,  register, 
count,  report  and  give  effect  to  the  vote  of  such  citizen,  who  shall  wrongfully 
refuse  to  count  and  certify  the  same,  shall  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  $500  to 
the  person  aggrieved  or  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  one  month  nor  more  than 
on  year." 

Section  4:  "That  if  any  person  by  force,  bribery,  threats  or  intimidation  or 
other  illegal  means,  shall  hinder,  delay,  prevent  or  obstruct,  or  shall  bind  and 
confederate  with  others  to  hinder,  delay,  etc.,  any  citizen  from  doing  the  act 
required  to  be  done  to  qualify  him  to  vote  or  from  voting  at  any  election,  such 
person  for  every  such  offense,  shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  $500  to  the  person  ag 
grieved  and  shall  also,  upon  conviction  thereof  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor 
and  fined  $500,  or  be  imprisoned  for  not  less  than  one  month  nor  more  than 
one  year." 


Provision  in  a  state  code  prohibiting  white  persons  and  Negroes 
living  together  in  adultery  or  fornication  is  not  in  conflict  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  although  it  prescribes  penalties 
more  severe  than  those  to  which  the  parties  would  be  subject  if 
they  were  of  the  same  race. 

Pace  vs.  Alabama,  106  U.  S.  583. 


The  Fourteenth  Amendment  is  a  prohibition  upon  states  only,  and 
legislation  authorized  to  be  adopted  by  Congress  for  enforcing  it  is 

[234] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

not  direct  legislation  on  matters  respecting  which  states  are  pro 
hibited  from  making  or  enforcing  certain  laws  or  doing  certain  acts, 
but  corrective  legislation  such  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  proper 
counteracting  and  redressing  the  effect  of  such  laws  or  acts. 

The  First  and  Second  Sections  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  March 
1,  1875,  are  unconstitutional  enactments  as  applied  to  the  several 
states,  not  being  authorized  either  by  the  Thirteenth  or  Fourteenth 
Amendments. 

(1883)  Civil  Rights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  3.    Opinion  by  Bradley, 
J. ;  Harlan  dissented. 

Note — In  the  course  of  his  argument  and  reasoning  in  arriving  at  this  conclu 
sion,  the  learned  justice  said:  "Civil  rights  such  as  are  guaranteed  by  the 
Constitution  can  not  be  impaired  by  an  individual  unsupported  by  state  au 
thority  in  its  laws,  customs  or  judicial  or  executive  proceedings.  The  wrong 
ful  act  of  an  individual  unsupported  by  such  authority  is  simply  a  private 
wrong  or  a  crime  of  the  individual;  an  invasion  of  his  rights  'tis  true, 
whether  they  effect  his  person,  his  property  or  his  reputation;  but  if  they  are 
not  sanctioned  in  some  way  by  the  state  or  done  under  its  authority,  his 
rights  remain  in  full  force  and  may  presumably  be  vindicated  by  resort  to  the 
laws  of  the  state  for  redress." 

Sections  1  and  2  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  are  the  well-known  provisions  in 
tended  to  secure  to  Negroes  the  indiscriminate  privileges  of  accommodations 
at  hotels,  theatres,  etc.,  as  well  as  in  matters  of  travel  on  conveyances  of 
common  carriers.  ..  .» ., 


[235| 


APPENDIX  C 


INTERESTING  DECISIONS  BY  SOME  OF  THE  STATE  COURTS 

Although  there  be  in  a  State's  Bill  of  Rights  provision  making  all 
of  its  citizens  equal  before  the  law,  a  law  afterwards  passed  making 
it  a  penal  offense  for  a  Caucasian  and  a  Negro  to  marry,  is  not  un 
constitutional  (neither  the  state  nor  the  United  States  Constitution 
being  offended  thereby).  Each  state  has  the  right  to  declare  how 
and  whom  its  citizens  shall  marry. 

Francois   vs.    State,  9  Tex.   App.   144. 

Ex  parte   Kinney,  3  Hughes    (Va.)    C.   Ct.  9. 


Regulations  requiring  white  and  colored  passengers  to  occupy 
separate  cars  or  compartments  of  railroad  car  are  not  unconstitu 
tional. 

Ex  parte  Plessy,  7  Am.  R.  &  Corp.  Repts.  383. 

Clinton  vs.  R.  R.  Co.,  21  S.  W.  (Mo.)  457. 

Note — For  a  long  line  of  these  decisions  by  various  courts  see  Lawyers  Reports 
Annotated  Vol.  XVIII.  Decisions  often  turn  on  the  point  of  distinction  between 
"equality"  and  "identity."  Where  the  statutes  require  railroads,  etc.,  to  give 
all  passengers  "equal"  accommodations,  or  even  "identical"  accommodations, 
courts  have  usually  held  that  it  does  not  mean  that  they  should  have  the 
"same"  accommodations,  etc. 


COMMENT   ON   SCHOOL   DECISIONS,    ETC. 

The  question  of  legality  of  maintaining  separate  public  schools 
has  been  before  the  courts  many  times,  and  it  has  been  uniformly 
held  by  the  highest  courts  of  several  states  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  separate 
schools  for  the  education  of  the  colored  race;  and  that  it  is  purely 
a  matter  of  state  regulation. 

People  vs.  Gallagher,  93  N.  Y.  438. 

State  vs.  McCann,  21  Ohio  129. 

Cory  vs.  Carter,  48  Indiana  327. 

Ward  vs.  Flood,  48  Cal.  36. 

United  States  vs.  Buntin,  10  Fed.  Reps.  730. 


Some  states  have  passed  laws  specifically  abolishing  separate 
schools,  as  in  Pennsylvania.  But  even  here  local  regulations  or 
customs  in  communities  with  a  large  colored  population  tend  to 
encourage  the  maintenance  of  separate  schools. 

The  Kansas  Constitution  of  1876  provided  in  Sections  2  and 
9  of  Article  XI,  in  substance  as  follows:  That  in  cities  of  a 

[236] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 

certain  class  there  shall  be  established  and  maintained  a  system  of 
schools  free  to  all  children  residing  in  such  cities  within  a  specified 
age;  and  the  Board  of  Education  was  given  power  to  make  their 
own  rules  and  regulations,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  that  article, 
to  organize  and  maintain  a  system  of  graded  schools,  and  to  estab 
lish  a  high  school,  etc.  The  Board  of  Education  of  one  of  the  cities 
within  the  provisions  of  the  act  undertook  to  exclude  Negro  chil 
dren  from  a  certain  school.  Upon  appeal  to  the  courts  it  was  held: 
"That  until  the  legislature  clearly  confers  power  upon  the  school 
boards  of  such  cities  in  Kansas,  to  establish  separate  schools  for  the 
education  of  colored  and  white  children,  no  such  power  exists." 

Tinon  vs.   Board  of   Education,  26  Kan.   1 ;   Knox   vs.   same 
in  1891. 


The  Constitution  of  Iowa  provided  for  the  education  of  all  the 
children  of  the  state  within  certain  ages  without  distinction  of 
color.  (Laws  of  Iowa,  1862,  Ch.  192,  Sec.  12.) 

An  Iowa  school  board  undertook  to  exclude  a  Negro  from  a  cer 
tain  public  school  but  on  appeal  to  the  courts  it  was  held:  "That 
school  boards  have  no  power  or  discretion  to  compel  colored  chil 
dren  to  attend  separate  schools." 

Clark  vs.  School  Board,  24  Iowa  266. 
Smith  vs.   School  Board,  40  Iowa  518. 

"All  legislation  which  discriminates  against  any  particular  race  or 
class  of  persons  is  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

"Taxation  for  the  purpose  of  education  should  be  provided  for  by 
general  laws,  applicable  to  all  classes  and  races  alike,  all  children  of 
the  United  States  being  entitled  to  an  equal  share  of  the  proceeds 
of  the  common  school  fund  and  of  all  state  taxes  for  the  purposes 
of  education." 

Dawson   vs.   Lee,  83  Ky.  50. 

"A  law  providing  that  the  funds  raised  by  taxation  from  property 
belonging  to  white  people  shall  be  used  for  the  education  of  white 
children,  and  those  raised  from  taxation  of  property  belonging  to 
Negroes  shall  be  used  for  the  education  of  Negroes  is  unconsti 
tutional." 

Markham  vs.   Manning,  96  N.   C.   1. 


|237] 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Index 


A  AMERICAN    COLONIZATION 

SOCIETY   13,  109 

ABOLITION  of     Slavery  After         AMNESTY   196,  200 

Revolution    in    Connecticut,  ANDREWS,  Governor  of  Mas- 
Massachusetts,     Rhode     Is-            sachusetts   100,  114 

land,  New  Hampshire,  Ver-  ANTHONY,  Col.  D.  R.,  Forbids 

mont,  New  York,  New  Jer-  Slave  Hunting  102 

sey  13  ANTI-SLAVERY,  Agitation  by 

Amendment  for  92,  106  Quakers    14 

In  District  of  Columbia  20,45,90       First  Society  14 

In   United   States    108,116,118,149  Advocates  Driven  from  South  43 

Of  Slave  Trade  After  1808. ...   19       Convention    14 

Slave  States  Favor  17       Forces   in   Congress    26 

ABpLITIONISTS    14, 85, 87       Garrison  Leads   39 

Lincoln    Not     In  New  York,  Maryland,  Dela- 

75,97,103,106,108,110  ware,  New  Jersey,  Connec- 

ADAMS,  Charles  Francis 62  ticut,     Virginia,    Rhode     Is- 

ADAMS,  John   Quincy   (Note).   13  land,   Pennsylvania    14 

Against    Slavery     In  Twenty-sixth  Congress —  47 

47,49,53,56,58,108       Literature 15 

Garrison    Supports    39  Matter  Excluded  from  Mails.  40 

Opposes    Resolution    42  Memorials  by  Negroes  (Note)  15 

ADMISSION  of   Missouri... 22,  28       Publications    39,40 

Arkansas 42,  43,   173       Sentiment  Grows   53 

Colorado  150  APPEAL,  Walker's    40 

Florida    56  APPORTIONMENT    BILL    .... 

Georgia  174,  180  135,136,140 

Kansas   80,  81  ARKANSAS,  Territory    Organ- 
Louisiana   177           ized   25,  26 

Maine  26       Admission  of 42,  43,  56 

Mississippi    177,  179       Reconstruction 173,  174 

Nebraska    154  ARMSTRONG,  General,  founds 

North  Carolina   177  Hampton  Institue   209 

South   Carolina    177  ASHLEY,   James    M.,   on   Thir- 

Tennessee    152  teenth  Amendment,  116, 127, 213 

Texas 56,58,64,80,177  ASHMAN,  Representative,    Of- 

Virginia    178  fers   Amendment    to    Mexi- 

AFRICAN   SLAVE  TRADE  can    Bill    56 

(See   Slave  Trade)  AVERY   Platform    82 

ALABAMA,  Constitution, 

172,  173,  177  B 

ALBANY  ARGUS   86 

AMENDMENTS,    to    Constitu-         BAKER,  Jehu    138 

tion,  92,  115,  135,  137,  139,  140,         "BARN  BURNERS"   62 

152,  162,  171,  180   BELL    (of   Tennessee)    70,83 

AMERICAN     ANTI-SLAVERY  BENEZET,     Anthony,      Estab- 

SOCIETY 14          lishes  School  207 

[241] 


THE  QUESTION  BEFORE  CONGRESS 

BENTON,   Thomas   H 23  CLARK,  Senator    .                       ..89 

BENJAMIN,  John  F 159  CLAY,  Henry,   Speaker    ..26,27,28 

BERRIEN    (of   Georgia)    70  Fathers    Fugitive    Slave    Bill. 

BINGHAM,  John  A 70  84 

90,136,152,163,174,177,182  CLERGYMEN     of     New   Eng- 

BIRNEY,  James    G.,   Joins    Gar-  land    Protest    73 

rison   46  COLFAX,  Schuyler,  Nominated  161 

Starts  Liberty  Party 61,64  COLORADO,   Admission    of.... 150 

BLACK    LAWS    COLORED    Members    Expelled 

109,128,129,131,147,210  by   Georgia   Legislature    ...180 

"BLACK  REPUBLICAN"... 85,  104  COLORED  Soldiers    

BLAIR,  F.  P 79  102, 103, 107, 120, 191, 211 

ELAINE,  Jas.  G.,  on  Fourteenth  COMPENSATION,     for     Freed- 

Amendment  135  men   112, 143 

Breaks  with  Conklin  137,191,203  COMPROMISE,     in     Constitu- 

BLOUT'S   FORT    35,  36,  51  tion   18 

BORDER    RUFFIANS    75  Missouri    24,25,   32 

BOUTWELL,  Geo.  S 162  CONFEDERATE     Army,     Ne- 

BRIGHT,  Jesse  D 70  groes    in     103 

BROOKS,      Preston,      Assaults  CONFISCATION    107,157 

Sumner    78  CONKLIN,  Roscoe    ....127,137,202 

BROWNLOW,   Governor  of  Ten-  CONSTITUTIONAL      AMERI- 

nessee    .138  CAN    Party    83 

BROWN,  John,  in  Kansas   ....  75  CONSTITUTION,    Slavery    in.. 

Raid   of    82,  85  14, 15, 87, 128, 141, 144, 148, 163, 

BROWN,    Sen.    Gratz    ....153,168  177,183 

BRUCE,   B.   K 179  CONVENTION,  Anti-Slavery.. .  14 

BUCHANAN,  Jas.  A.,     Elected  Of    1860    81,  82 

President    . ...  81  Peace    93 

BUFFALO    Convention    63  COOPER,  Jas.   (Pa.)    70 

BULLOCK,    Governor    of    Geor-  "COPPER-HEADS"    ....62,126,152 

gia    182  COURT,  Supreme  of  U.  S.  De- 

BUTLER,  Benj.  F.,  at  Baltimore  cisions     (See   Appendix) 

Convention    83  CRANDALL,    Prudence    209 

At   New   Orleans    101 

Backs  Force  Bill   ....191,192,197  D 

Reconstruction    180 

C  DADE,    Major,    Destruction    of 

CABIN,    "Uncle    Tom's,"     pub- 38,  51 

lished    40,208  DAVIS,   Jefferson    88 

CALHOUN,   John    C,    in    Cabi-  DAYTON,  Wm.   L.,   Nominated  81 

net    33  Minister  to  France   101 

Offers    Resolution    48  D'AUTREVE,   Claims    by    33 

CAMERON,  Secretary  of  War  103  DELAWARE,   Slavery   in    26 

CAMPAIGN  of  1848  61  DECISIONS  of  Supreme  Court 

"CARPET-BAGGER"    .152,171,172  (See   Appendix) 

CARPENTER,  Sen.  Matthew..  DEMOCRATIC    Party    

197,200          25,41,62,69,77,82 

CASS,    Sen.    Lewis     51  DENT,   Marshall    102 

CHANDLER,    Senator    186  DEPORTATION  89, 107, 109, 110, 112 

CHANNING,  Rev.  Dr.  W.  E...  40  DICKINSON,  Daniel   M 62 

CHASE,    Salmon    P 79  DISTRICT  of  Columbia    

CITIZENS,    Negroes    not    124  17,21,42,45,109,115 

CIVIL    RIGHTS    DOOLITTLE,   Senator   109,130,141 

.115,133,140,144,148,183,194,196  "DOUGH    FACES"    28,40,66 

[242] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 


DOUGLAS,  Stephen  A.   ..70,76,78 

Debates  Lincoln   95 

DOWNS    (of   North   Carolina).  70 

DRAFT    ACT    123 

DRAFT   RIOTS    105 

DRAKE,    Senator    (Missouri).. 

174, 178 

DRED   SCOTT    23,82,84,135 

DURKEE,     Senator      (Wiscon 
sin)    69 


EDMUNDS,  Senator  Geo.  F.   .197 

EDUCATION    109,207 

ELLIOTT,   Representative    .... 

(Massachusetts)    112,197 

EMANCIPATION,       in       New 

England   (Note)    13 

By  Army  Officers    102 

By    Lincoln     110,112,115 

Demanded    106 

In    New   Jersey    (Note)    13 

In   New   York    (Note)    ....13,20 

Proclamation    97 

"EMANCIPATOR"    40 

EMBREE,    Elihu    40,44 

ENGLAND,  Second  War  with.  21 

EVERETT,  Edward   83 

EXCLUSION,       Law     Against 

Hayti 21 

Anti-Slavery    Literature    ....  40 
EXILES   of   Florida    35,36 


FREEDMEN,     Re-enslavement 

of   14,147 

Abandoned    149 

Help    for    118,132 

Suffering  and  Destitution  of.  155 

Trying  Times  for   147 

FREEDMEN'S    BUREAU    .... 

118,156,211,212 

FREE    NEGROES    22 

As    Soldiers    120 

As    Voters     169 

FUGITIVE    SLAVES    

....    19,22,69,82,102,105,107,134 


GAG    RULE    49,  56 

GARFIELD,   Jas.   A 127 

GARRISON,    Wm.    L.    13, 39, 63,  94 

GATES,    Seth    M 49 

GEORGIA    14,15,35,  47 

Negroes  Flee  from  102 

Reconstruction    180 

GIDDINGS,  Joshua  R.,  Attacks 
Slavery    48,59,66,69,72,   79 

Censured  by  House    52 

GIST,   Governor    (S.   C)    87 

GOTT,  Daniel   62 

GRANT,  General 125 

President    16! 

Wants  San  Domingo  185,  192,202 
GREELEY,   Horace    79 

Open  Letter  to  Lincoln   .110,114 
GRIMES,    Senator    106 


FIFTEENTH      AMENDMENT 

128,162,163,171,183,190 

FLORIDA,   Territory   of    ......  34 

Admitted    55 

Ceded  to  United  States    36 

Exiles    of    35,36,  49 

Fort    Brooke    36 

Indians    in 36 

Reconstruction    176 

Slavery   in    68 

FORCE    BILL    189,190 

FORT   WAGNER    122 

FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT 
129, 140, 147, 148, 162, 180, 183, 
190, 206 

FRANCHISE   131, 136, 139, 170 

FREMONT,  John  C,  Nominat 
ed    60 

Offends   Lincoln   81,102 


H 


HALE,    Sen.   John    P 58 

HALLECK,    General    102,106 

HARPERS  FERRY,  Raid   ..85,89 
HARRISON,    Wm.    H.,    Wants 

Slaves    in    West    51 

HAYES,  R.  B.,  President    202 

HAYTI,   U.    S.    Suspends    Rela 
tions   with    21 

Freed    from    France    21,35 

Spurned  by  England   (Note).  21 
HENDERSON,     Senator,     Pro 
poses      Thirteenth      Amend 
ment   116,140,163 

HOAR,    George    F 213 

HOMESTEAD   ACT    ..118,144,183 

HOWARD,   Gen.   O.   0 209 

HOWARD  UNIVERSITY. .  156, 209 


[243] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 


HOWE,    Senator    ..............  136 

HUNTER,    Gen.    David    .......  102 


ILLINOIS,    Lovejoy    Murdered 
in    ........................  45,  47 

IMMIGRANT  Aid  Society   ....  75 

Against    Slavery    ............  75 

INDIANS,   Harbor   Negroes   34,  36 


JACKSON,   General    .........  33,35 

President     .................  40,44 

JAY    Hon    John    ..............  49 

JEFFERSON,    Thomas    .....  13,14 

JENNINGS,    Jonathan    ........  52 

JOHNSON,  Andrew   ............ 

79,89,129,130,142,144,151,159,160 
JOHNSON,  Capt.  Jas.  B  ......  156 

JULIAN,  Geo.W.  69,79,113,  131,213 


KANSAS,  Troubles  in    ...64,72,85 
KASSON,    John    A  ............  148 

KELLEY,  Wm.   D  .............  131 

KENTUCKY,      Representatives 
Vote    for    Abolition    .......   17 

KIDNAPPERS    ................  59 

KING,    Preston     ...............  79 

"KNOW-NOTHINGS"    .........  64 

KU  KLUX  KLAN..  147,  177,  189,  193 


LAND  for  Freedmen,  40  Acres  133 
LAY,    Benjamin    ...............   15 

LE  COMPTON          CONSTITU- 

TrmsJ  75    79 

"TTPrRATOR;'"publVshed"       '  45 
LIBERTY  ^PAR^Y     slarted:::  4^ 

LINP<5SlJ*    Graham5011    '  '  '  '%  86 
LIJNLUJLJN,  Abranam    ........  />/,  ou 

Approves  Halleck  and  Dent  102 
Career    Sketch    ..............  95 

Death  of   .................  1W26 


Replies   to  Greeley   .......  110 

Special    Message    ............  108 

Warns    South     ...............  110 

Would    Pay    for    Slaves    .....  112 

LINDSAY,  Judge  Jos  ..........  58 

LITERATURE,    Anti-Slavery39,40 
Excluded  from  Mails  ........  40 

LITTLEFIELD,      Gen.      M.    S., 
Report  on  Colored  Soldiers.  120 

L'OUVERTURE,          Toussaint, 
Drives  French  from  Hayti     35 

LOGAN,   John   A  ..............  79 

LOUISIANA,   Purchase  of    ....  68 

Reconstruction    ..............  174 

Slavery    in    .............  33,43,68 

LUNDY,  Benj.,  in  Tennessee  39,44 


M 


MADISON,   James    ............  79 

MAGNUM,  W.  P  ..............  70 

MAILS,     Anti-Slavery     Litera 
ture   Excluded    .............  40 

MAINE,  Admission  ............  26 

MAROONS,  Attack   Dade    ..36,38 
MASSACHUSETTS,  Emancipa- 
tion    in    (Note)     ...........   13 

MASON,  Senator   (Virginia)   70,85 
MARYLAND,   Quakers    in    ----   17 

Garrison    Driven    from    ......  44 

Garrison    in    .................  39 

Lundy    in     ...................  39 

Vote    Against    Slavery    ...  17,  25 
McCLELLAN,  Gen.  Geo.  B.  79,102 
MEXICO,    War    with    29,58,61,148 
MINER,    Miss    Myrtilla    .......  208 

MINISTERS  to   Foreign   Courts 


Compromise   ............  33,42,  79 

Raiders   irom   ................  83 

MISSISSIPPI,  Reconstruction   177 
MONROE,  President,  Questions 

MORTON?  Senator  '  !  I  !  £  !  !*» 
oTf  T  o»>  904.0 

SILLS      ..............  -S,4L 


N 


ta  Huntr..  NEBRASKA,  Troubles  in  64,72,85 

Discourages    Freedom     ......  110    NEGROES,  Whites   Slaves   Be- 


Doubts    Negro    Soldiers    .....  103 

Election  to  Presidency   ......  87 

First  Inaugural  Address    ....  94 

Not   Abolitionist    ............  95 


fore     .....    .  ....  ............   12 

As  Authors   (Note)    ..........   14 

As  Soldiers   ..................  102 

At  Blout  s  Fort  ..............  35 


[244] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 


Denied   Protection    149 

Deportation  of   89,107,110 

Forbidden  Within  Lines 102 

Fremont  Frees   102 

In  Confederate  Army  (Note).  102 

In    Revolution    13 

Kill  Dade   36 

Laws  Against   14 

NEW    HAMPSHIRE,    Emanci 
pation  in  (Note) 13 

NEW    JERSEY,    Emancipation 

in  (Note)    13 

Quakers   in    17,20 

NEW  MEXICO,  Slavery  in 90 

NEW  YORK,  Emancipation  in 

(Note)    13,20 

NEW    YORK    HERALD,    Atti 
tude  of    :...  87 

NEW  ORLEANS,  Battle  of....  33 

General  Butler  in   101 

NOEL,  L.,  Representative  (Mis 
souri)   113 

NORTH  CAROLINA,  for  Abo 
lition  25 

Reconstruction   177, 189 

NORTHERN  PRESS  66,67 

NORTH   WEST   TERRITORY. 

21,22,  68 

NYE,   Senator    .  ..166 


OHIO,  River  Dividing  Line 11 

Slavery   Restricted    20 

"OLD   MAN  ELOQUENT" 60 

OMNIBUS  BILL   64,174,180 

ORDINANCE  OF  1787 21,51 

OREGON,  Territory  of  56 

OSTEND   MANIFESTO   .          .  82 


PACHECO,  Petition  of 67 

PALFREY,  John  G 58,65,67 

PAMPHLET,    Anti-Slavery    by 

Negroes   (Note)    15 

PEACE  CONVENTION   93 

PENNSYLVANIA,  Opposes  Sla 
very  (See  Appendix)    17,20 

PETITIONS,    Anti-Slavery 

15,17,42,65,109,115 

PHELPS,  S.  S 70 

PHILADELPHIA,    First    Anti- 
Slavery  Society   14 

Convention  15 


PHILLIPS,  Wendell  (Note).. 45, 97 

PIERCE,    President    77 

PINCKNEY,  Rep.  (S.  C.) 42 

POLK,  President,  on  Mexico  ..  58 

POMEROY,  Sen.  (S.  C.) 112 

POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY. .73, 82 
POSTMASTER    GENERAL   Ex 
cludes   Literature    40 

PROTEST  of  Sen.  Wade  et  al. 
(See    Appendix) 


QUAKERS,    Anti-Slavery    Agi 
tation   14, 15 

Prohibit   Slave  Holding    ...17-39 


RADICALS    ....  127, 132, 150, 160, 172 
RANDOLPH,     John    (Va.)    At 
tacks   Slavery    21,22,28 

RECONSTRUCTION   126 

Committee    137, 152, 172 

Negroes    Aid    ....172,175,179,200 

Government  Ends   195 

RE-ENSLAVEMENT    14, 147 

REFUGEES 118,132 

REPUBLICAN  PARTY   25,64 

Organized  79 

Position    of    

81, 85, 88, 89, 92, 127, 159, 194,199,203 
RESTRICTION    of    Slavery    in 
Missouri,  Pennsylvania,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Ohio  and 

Delaware    25,26,66 

REVELS,  Hiram   R.,   in   Senate 

179, 184 

REVIEW  of  African  Slave  Trade 

Published    (Note)     41 

REVOLUTION,    Slavery    Abol 
ished  After  13 

Negroes   Fought  in 13,34 

RHETT,    Representative    (South 

Carolina)     47 

RHODE     ISLAND,     Emancipa 
tion  in  (Note) 13 

ROLLINS,  E.  H.,  on  Repeal  of 

Black  Laws    109 

Supports  Colored  Schools 210 

ROOT,   J.    M 65,69 


SALISBURY,   Senator    134,139 

SANDERSON,  Ralph   (Note)...   14 


[245] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 


SAN  DOMINGO  185,187 

SCHOLARS,   Negro    Publishers 

(Note)    14 

SCOTT,  Dred  (Note) 20,23 

(Also  Appendix) 

SCOTT,      Representative      (Mis 
souri),  Talmage   Replies   to  27 
SECOND  WAR  with  England..  21 

Seminole 36 

SECESSION  Threatened  27 

By  Calhoun    86 

In  New   England    86 

Of  South   86 

Right    of    92,161 

SEMINOLE  WAR   36-49 

SEWARD,  Wm.  H 79,101 

SEYMORE    &     BLAIR    Nomi 
nated  161 

SHAW,    Colonel    121 

SHELLABARGER,    Samuel,   In 

troduces  Force  Bill 192 

SHERMAN,  Jno.,  87,88,121,141,153 
SHERMAN,    Gen.    W.    T.,    As 
signs  Land  to  Freedmen. .  .132 

SLADE,   Wm 45,47 

SLAVES,    Whites,    Before    Ne 
groes   13 

As    Property    23, 33 

Compensation   for    ...109,111,139 
Declared   to   Be   Property    ...  33 

Emancipated  by  Quakers 14 

Escaped   helped  by   Indians..  34 

Fugitive  Law   17,69,82 

Not  Property   33 

SLAVE-HOLDERS,      Agitation 

of   33 

As  Social  Leaders   66 

SLAVERY,  Jefferson   Opposes.   14 
Abolished   in  United   States..  115 

Early    Abolition    (Note)     14 

Embarrassment  to  Candidates  51 

Forces   in   Congress    22,25 

In  Constitution    15 

In  N.  W.  Territory 21 

In   New   Mexico   Prohibited..  90 

In  Missouri   26 

In  the  Territories   33,39 

Issue  in  New  Hampshire 61 

Leading  Statesman   on    14 

Opposed   at   Convention. ..  .62, 87 
Prohibited   in   Louisiana   Ter 
ritory    27,  28 

Wanted  in  West  By  Harrison  57 
SLAVE  HUNTERS   invade   In 
dian    Reservation    .  .  35 


SLAVE  STATE  for  Abolition. 

17,25 

SLAVE  TRADE  Stimulated  ...   15 

Attacked    27 

Constitution  Ignored   25 

Prohibited  by  Congress  (Note) 

15 

Revival    of    89,91 

Review  of,  Published  40 

SLOANE,   Representative    20 

SOCIETY,    Anti-Slavery    14 

"SOFT  HUNKERS"   62 

SOLDIERS,  Negroes  Employed.102 

In  Southern  Army   102 

Considered     104, 107, 120 

Discriminated    against    120 

Record    120,191,211 

SOUTH    CAROLINA    ....47,66,87 

Reconstruction    174 

SPAIN  Cedes  Florida   34,37 

SPEAKERSHIP  Contest  of  1860.  87 
"SQUATTER  SOVEREIGNTY"  73 
STEVENS,    Thaddeus,    Repub 
lican  Leader   90 

Death    of     159,200 

On   Black  Laws 129 

On    Confiscation     157 

On  Public  Lands   133 

Proposes  Constitutional  Amend 
ment    115 

Speech  on  Colored  People  — 130 
STOWE,  Harriet  Beecher,  Pub 
lishes  "Uncle's  Tom  Cabin" 

41,208 

SUMNER,  Charles   60 

Assaulted  by  Brooks  78 

Death    of     .....194,195,200 

Defeats    Annexation    of    San 

Domingo    186 

Defends   Record    167 

Enters   Senate    73 

Extension  of  Suffrage 140 

Fathers   Constitutional  Amend 

ments    128 

Helps     to    Organize    Republi 
can  Party   79 

Leader   of    Radicals    128 

Offers      Substitute      for      Fif 
teenth    Amendment    162 

On  Status  of  Seceded  States.  128 

Opposes  Grant   185 

Opposes  Halleck's  Order 106 

Stands  Against   Slavery    89 

Stops  Removal  of  Slaves  from 
District  of  Columbia 109 


[246] 


THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    CONGRESS 


Supports  Van  Buren  64    TYLER,  President,    Urges    Ad- 

Thurman  Defends    186  mission  of  Texas 56 


TALMAGE,     Gen.     James,     on 

Slavery  Restriction   26 

Replies  to  Scott  27 

TANEY,  Chief  J 84,135 

TAPPAN,   Arthur,   Aids    Garri 
son   44 

TARIFF  Question   51 

TAYLOR,  President  64 

TAYLOR,   Representative   (New 
York)       Amends      Arkansas 

Bill 25 

On  Special  Committee 26 

TENNESSEE,   Embree   in    ....  39 

Reconstruction   151, 180 

TENNESSEE,  Lundy  in    39 

TERRITORY,    N.    W 21,22 

Organization  of   215 

Slavery   Prohibited   in.  .28,89, 154 
TEXAS,  Secedes  from  Mexico.  49 
Admitted  to  United  States... 

52,58,64 

Reconstruction    177 

THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT 
Proposed  by  Stevens,  Sum- 

ner    and    Henderson    

115,127  (Note),  147,148,162 

THOMAS,    Senator,    Resolution 

on    Slavery    28 

THURMAN,    Senator,    Defends 

Sumner    186 

TILDEN,  Sam'l  J.,  Nominated.. 202 
TRUMBULL,    Senator     Lyman 
on  Harper's  Ferry  Raid  .85,89 

Differs  with  Sumner 166 

Homestead    and    Civil    Rights 

Bill    133,139 

Introduces  Confiscation  Bill. .106 
TUCK,    Amos,    Presents     Peti 
tion   58,69 

TUPPER,     Dr.,    Founds     Shaw 
University    209 


U 

"UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN"  Pub 
lished   208 

V 

VALLANDINGHAM,  C.  L.,  Cop 
per-head    62,126 

VAN  BUREN,  President 46 

As  to  Second  Term 62,65 

First  Message   46 

VENABLE,    Representative 

(North    Carolina)     65 

VERMONT,  Emancipation  in..  13 

VIRGINIA  Cavaliers    13 

John  Randolph  of  21 

Lawlessness  in   162 

Reconstruction   177 

W 

WADE,   Senator   Benjamin    ...154 

WALKER'S  APPEAL   39 

WALKER'S  Expedition   69 

WAR  (Civil),  Beginning  of   ...  92 
Northern   Papers   Encourage.  85 

WAR    (Revolutionary)    13 

Negroes  in   13 

Slavery  Abolished  After    13 

WAR,  Second  with  England  21,22 

With   Mexico   29 

With    Seminoles     36 

WAR  DEMOCRATS   95,159 

WEBSTER,    Daniel    (Whig)    ..  62 

WELLS,  Gideon    93 

WHIGS    64,69,76,79,83 

WHITE  Slavery  Before  Negroes  13 
WILMOT,    David,  Proviso. 58, 69,  79 

WILLIAMS,  Senator  G.  H 162 

WILSON,  Sen.  Henry.  .106, 121, 149 
WISE,  of  Virginia,   Calls   Rep 
resentatives  from  House...  47 
WOOD,      Fernando,      "Copper 
head"    62,126 


[247] 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RET  This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 

or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall.  


REC'D  LQ         *    O  n  -9  A    o  4 


Dug  GJ3-J  c!  WINTER  Quart 

-cT  to  recell  after- 


General  Library 

LD2lA-40m-8,  71  University  of  California 

(P6572slO)476-A-32  Berkeley 


General  Library 
LD  2lA-10m-l,'68  University  of  California 

(H7452slO)476B  Berkeley 


